IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2008 / 2ND ASHADHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 3887 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.476/07 OF THRISSUR EAST POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED ------------------------------------ MOHAMOOD.M.V., INDIAN STAR EXPORTS, ANJALI COMPLEX, SOUTH OVERBRIDGE, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.K.MOHAMMED YOUSUF SMT.SHAMEENA SALAHUDHEEN RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THRISSUR EAST POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.G.THAMPI THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------------------- B.A.No. 3887 of 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2008 ORDER This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. Petitioner is the 4th accused. According to the prosecution, the accused Nos. 1 and 2 claimed to be the Managing Directors/Board of Directors of the company approached the Kerala State Co-operative Bank for a huge loan of Rs.294 lakhs. The third accused offered his property as security for the said transaction. The loan was granted but it was not repaid. The documents which are produced for getting loan were allegedly forged at the instance of the petitioner. It is also alleged that the petitioner has obtained Rs.60 lakhs as commission for fabricating the documents like title deeds and other registered documents in the same transaction and he has the seal of the Sub Registrar. 3. Learned Director General of Prosecution submitted that A1 was arrested as early as on 21.8.2007 and the petitioner's involvement was revealed in the investigation BA No.3887/08 2 conducted thereafter. The petitioner is required for custodial interrogation in the nature of the offence committed. An application for anticipatory bail was filed last year and all rival contentions were considered in order dated 20.9.2007 in BA.No.5493/07 by this Court. This Court by a fairly lengthy order considered the various aspects and found that a very ingenious method of forgery was employed for bringing into existence a document which is not registered at the Registrar's office and to make it appear that such a document has been registered. 4. Considering in detail all the aspects and the rival contentions, it was observed in the above said order that extraordinary circumstances must certainly be available to justify invocation of powers under Section 438 Crl.P.C. But no such circumstances are available in this case. This Court while dismissing the earlier application also observed that if the petitioners surrenders before the Investigating officer or learned Magistrate and applies for bail after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate must proceed to pass appropriate orders expeditiously. The BA No.3887/08 3 petitioner has not chosen to avail of the benefit of that order to obtain an expeditious disposal of the bail application. Instead, after nine long months, he filed another anticipatory bail application which is being considered now. 5. This petition is vehementally opposed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was brought into the picture only on the basis of a statement given by the co-accused and he is totally innocent of the allegations made. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the petitioner has surrendered before the court in obedience to the direction issued by this Court on the previous posting and hence a lenient view may be taken in the matter. 6. After hearing both sides, I am satisfied that there is nothing more to be done in this case as far as the request for anticipatory bail is concerned. The successive filing of the bail application, that too, after nine months of disposal of the earlier anticipatory bail application, by putting the investigation to a stand-still, by not surrendering before the Investigating officer or court itself dissuade this Court from exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 438 of Crl.P.C. I am satisfied that BA No.3887/08 4 even if this petition is allowed and any direction is given to the petitioner to surrender before the Investigating officer he may not surrender as rightly pointed out by learned DGP. This is what can be gathered from his conduct. 7. The alleged incident occurred as early as in 2003. But, petitioner has not appeared before the Investigating officer. He has been absconding for a long time, though his name was brought into the accused array as early as in August 2007 and even after disposal of earlier petition for anticipatory bail. Petitioner is present in court. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a direction may be issued to the learned Magistrate to consider the bail application to be filed by the petitioner before the court. It is needless to say that any application filed before the court will be considered and disposed of on merit. Hence, no specific direction need be issued by the court as requested. Earlier, there was a direction issued by this Court to dispose of the application expeditiously. But, the petitioner has not availed of the said opportunity to get an expeditious disposal and hence, I am not inclined to give any further direction in the matter. BA No.3887/08 5 9. Hence the following order is passed: (i) The petitioner shall be taken into custody by the police and he shall be produced before the Investigating officer without any delay. Learned DGP will make arrangements with the police to comply with this order. (ii) The prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. The petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE csl