High Court Kerala High Court

Abdul Rahman vs State Of Kerala on 10 September, 2009

Kerala High Court
Abdul Rahman vs State Of Kerala on 10 September, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 5169 of 2009()


1. ABDUL RAHMAN, S/O. MOHAMMED VELUTHEDATH,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN

 Dated :10/09/2009

 O R D E R
                        K.T. SANKARAN, J.
                     ---------------------------
                  B.A. Nos.5169, 5220, 5071,
                      5257 & 5167 of 2009
                 -----------------------------------
            Dated this the 10th day of September, 2009


                            O R D E R

All these Bail Applications are filed by different accused in

crime No.338/2009 of Varandarappilly Police Station, Thrissur. All

these Bail Applications are being disposed of by this common

order.

2. Accused Nos.5 and 1 are respectively the first

petitioner and and the second petitioner in B.A. No.5220/2009.

The second accused has filed B.A. No.5257/2009. The third

accused is the petitioner in B.A. No.5169/2009. In B.A.

No.5167/2009, the fourth accused is the petitioner. Accused No.6

has filed B.A. No.5071/2009 for anticipatory bail under

Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Except the sixth

accused, all other accused persons were arrested on different

dates and all of them have filed applications under Section 439 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure.

3. The Sub Inspector of Police, Varandarappilly got

information that forged B.Com degree certificates are kept in the

B.A. Nos. 5169/2009 and connected cases
2

house of the first accused, Biju Kunnel and a search was

conducted in his house on 13/8/2009. A forged degree certificate

in the name Hostin K.J. was found in the house of the first

accused. On further investigation, it was revealed that Biju

Kunnel sought the help of Khalid, the second accused, who in

turn sought the help of Abdul Rahiman, the third accused, to get

the forged degree certificate. Abdul Rahiman is working in Akbar

Travels, Koottanad. Investigation reveals that Abdul Rahiman

contacted Akbar, the fourth accused, who runs Dubai Travels at

Exanhipalam, Calicut. Akbar in turn contacted Abdul Majeed,

who was employed in Mohar Travels, YMCA Cross Road, Calicut.

Abdul Majeed approached his employer P.A. Abdul Rasheed, the

sixth accused. The sixth accused provided the forged degree

certificate, which by change of hands, reached the first accused

Biju Kunnel. It has come out in the investigation that Abdul

Rasheed had forged degree certificates of Calicut University at

the request of several other persons. Hostin K.J is working

abroad. He has not acquired B.Com Degree. Degree certificate is

forged in order to facilitate Hostin K.J. to get a better

B.A. Nos. 5169/2009 and connected cases
3

employment abroad. It would appear that the accused persons

stipulated a condition that the forged degree certificate would be

used only outside India.

4. The investigation reveals the complicity of several

persons hailing from Varandarappilly in Thrissur district to

Calicut. The accused persons have their places of work in Thrissur

district, Palakkad district, Malappuram district and Kozhikode

district. There is a racket, according to the prosecution, for

making available forged degree certificates of Calicut University.

The allegations are serious. The investigation is at the initial

stage. The sixth accused is not arrested so far. His prayer is to

grant anticipatory bail.

5. Accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 were arrested on 13/8/2009

while accused Nos. 4 and 5 were arrested on 14/8/2009. They

are in Judicial custody since then.

6. In the nature of the allegations made against the

accused persons and taking into account the gravity of the

offence and other circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to

grant bail to accused Nos.1 to 5. That they are in judicial custody

B.A. Nos. 5169/2009 and connected cases
4

for about a month is not at all a reason for granting bail at this

stage. The investigation has revealed that all the accused persons

have their own share of money in the whole transaction. If the

accused nos. 1 to 5 are granted bail, it would seriously affect the

proper investigation of the case. It is also most likely that they

may tamper with the evidence or intimidate or influence the

witnesses. Accordingly, the Bail applications filed by accused

Nos. 1 to 5 are dismissed.

7. Prayer for anticipatory bail made by the sixth accused

is liable to be rejected. He is the kingpin of the whole episode.

He is not making himself available. He has gone underground. In

the facts and circumstances of the case, the sixth accused is not

entitled to any discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, Bail application No.5071/2009

filed by the sixth accused is also dismissed.

For the reasons stated above, all the Bail Applications are

dismissed.

K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE

scm