IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 8TH MARCH 2010 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 412 of 2010() -------------------------------- CRIME NO. 155/2009 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION ...................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED : --------------------------- ABDUL SATHAR, S/O.ABDUL KHADER, RESIDING AT AVIKAMA DESOM, KANHANGAD VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.MADHU RESPONDENT/STATE : ------------------------- THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, HOSDURG POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY SRI. M.S.BREEZ PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 412 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 8th 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 the accused in Crime No.155/2009 of Hosdurg Police Station, Kasaragod District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 465, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that the petitioner submitted an application for the issuance of an Indian Passport. A community certificate ostensibly issued by the Tahsildar, Hosdurg was also produced along with the application for passport. The passport authority verified the correctness of the certificate. The Tahsildar, Hosdurg reported that the certificate was not genuine and that such a certificate was not issued. The crime was accordingly registered against the petitioner. The petitioner apprehends arrest and therefore, he has filed this application for anticipatory bail. B.A. No. 412/2010 2 4. The offences alleged against the petitioner are grave in nature. I do not think that this is a fit case where anticipatory bail can be granted in favour of the petitioner. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be required in the case. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case. I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to any discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE ln