IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 11TH DECEMBER 2009 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 6585 of 2009() ----------------------------------- CRIME NO. 410/2009 OF MANGALAPURAM POLICE STATION ................. PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------- ABDUL KHARIM, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.MOHAMMED HANEEFA, SHIBI MANZIL, CHANTHAVILA, SAINIK SCHOOL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI.V.R.REKESH SRI.RAJESH. K.RAJU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANGALAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANGALAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BYS RI. V. TEKCHAND PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 6585 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 11th day of December, 2009 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.410/2009 of Mangalapuram Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 489-B of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The gist of the prosecution case is the following: The de facto complainant is a lottery agent. The accused approached him and asked him to give two lottery tickets of Sikkim Super Lottery of the value of Rs.20/-. The petitioner gave a currency note of the denomination of Rs.500/- to the de facto complainant. He gave the tickets and the balance of Rs.480/- to the de facto complainant. The people who saw this cautioned the de facto complainant that fake currency was in circulation at that time and therefore, the de facto complainant should ensure the genuineness of the currency note. He got suspicious. The petitioner was called back by the people who were available. They found another currency note of the denomination of Rs. 1,000/- in the possession of the petitioner. At that time, the petitioner ran B.A. No. 6585 of 2009 2 away from the place. The de facto complainant informed the police. The currency notes were handed over to the police. The crime was accordingly registered. 5. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are grave in nature. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that this is a fit case where the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be granted in favour of the petitioner. Custodial interrogation would be required in the present case. The source of the counterfeit currency notes has to be investigated by the police. The investigation would be completed only after finding out as to whether some other persons are also involved in the offence and whether the petitioner is a part of a racket dealing with counterfeit currency notes. If Anticipatory Bail is granted to the petitioner, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case. For the aforesaid reasons, I am not inclined to allow the application for Anticipatory Bail. Accordingly, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE ln