IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 27TH OCTOBER 2009 / 5TH KARTHIKA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 6183 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.682/2009 OF KOTTIYAM POLICE STATION PETITIONER (S): ACCUSED --------------------------- SELASTIN @ JOY, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.KARLOSE, KUTTINADU HOUSE, MYLAKKADU. PO, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.L.SURESH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): STATE -------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.6183 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of October, 2009 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.3 in Crime No.682 of 2009 of Kottiyam Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 420, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 12(1)(b) of the Passports Act. 3. The prosecution case is that the petitioner approached the first accused for getting a second Passport for him. The first accused in turn arranged the second accused for procuring the Passport. The allegation is that the petitioner submitted the necessary application after making a deliberate change in the name and address, so that he could get a second Passport. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent of the allegations levelled against him. He has not obtained a second Passport. The prosecution case is that the petitioner had got a visa stamped in his first Passport in BA No.6183/2009 2 the year 2005 for the purpose of going abroad. It is alleged that within a short period, he would not be able to go to the same country using that Passport. That was the reason why the petitioner decided to get a second Passport by adopting illegal means. 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence and the allegations levelled against the petitioner, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to get the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, it would have an adverse impact on the smooth investigation of the case. The Bail application is accordingly dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl