IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 16TH DECEMBER 2008 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7502 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.178/2005 OF ATTINGAL POLICE STATION PETITIONER :ACCUSED NO.6 -------------------- DINESH, S/O,SURENDRAN VILAYIL HOUSE, VAVARA AMBALAM, KEEZHTHONNAKKAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.NIREESH MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ATTINGAL POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.7502 of 2008 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th December, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 465, 468, 471 and 34 IPC. According to prosecution, accused no.1 was having a permit to transport toddy from Palakkad to Thiruvananthapuram and this was in respect of vehicle no.KL-2/J-5722. But, the said vehicle was seized in connection with an Abkari offence. Suppressing this fact, first accused along with accused nos.4 to 6, in furtherance of common intention, forged certain documents to make it appear that the said vehicle was in the garage and that a consent was obtained from the owner of the vehicle etc. Documents were forged by accused nos.4 to 6 and petitioner is the sixth accused. Accused nos.2 and 3 are the Managers, who are working for the first accused. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is absolutely innocent of the allegations made and though petitioner is alleged to have forged documents in the remand report filed in respect of the first accused it is BA No.7502 /2008 2 mentioned that the handwriting of first accused was obtained for expert opinion and this itself will show that documents did not contain petitioner's handwriting. This would suggest that petitioner has not committed forgery, it is submitted. Therefore, petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned public prosecutor submitted that on the arrest of first accused, it was revealed that documents were forged by accused nos.4 to 6. Petitioner is required for ascertaining his complicity in the offence and he is required for the purpose of investigation. Since offence alleged to have been committed is forgery, it is necessary that his handwriting is also obtained for obtaining expert opinion. 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that in the nature of allegations made, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. The crime was registered as early as in 2005 and petitioner could not be interrogated so far. The interrogation of petitioner will be required for the purpose of ascertaining materials which are within his exclusive knowledge for an effective investigation. Therefore, this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. BA No.7502 /2008 3 Petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer without any delay and co-operate with investigation. Whether he surrenders or not, police is at liberty to arrest him and proceed in accordance with law. The petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE csl