IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 1ST MARCH 2010 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 1052 of 2010 CRIME NO.86 OF 2008 OF VELLARIKUNDU POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD. PETITIONER/ACCUSED A(2) ------------------------------------------- T.THAMBAN, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.MOOLAKKA KANNAN, THALAKKANAN HOUSE, MADIKKAI, AMBALATHARA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.HARISH RESPONDENTS: STATE & COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------- 1. STATE - REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, (CRIME NO.86 OF 2008 OF VELLARIKUNDU POLICE STATION), KASARAGOD DISTRICT. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 1052 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 1st day of March, 2010 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.2 in Crime No.86 of 2008 of Vellarikundu Police Station, Kasaragod. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Sections 419 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 12(1)(b) of the Passport Act. 3. The prosecution case is that an application for passport was submitted in the name of accused No.1 and in that application the photograph of accused No.2 was affixed. Accused Nos.1 and 2 are close relatives and they are holders of Indian Passport. Accused No.1 is a coolie. Accused No.2 was working abroad. Due to some reasons, he could not go abroad with the passport he was having and he thought of getting another passport in the name of accused No.1 after affixing the photograph of accused No.2 so that he could B.A. NO. 1052 OF 2010 :: 2 :: go abroad using that passport as if he was accused No.1. The manipulation was found out at the verification level itself. 4. It is stated by the learned Public Prosecutor that accused No.1 was arrested and at that time, the petitioner was not made an accused. On questioning accused No.1, real facts were revealed which necessitated addition of the petitioner as accused No.2. 5. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are grave in nature. I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be required. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/