IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 5945 of 2009()
1. D.R.NANDAKUMAR,S/O. DIVAKARAN NAIR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESNTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. DETECTIVE INSPEPCTOR, CBCID,
For Petitioner :SRI.M.SREEKUMAR
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :02/03/2010
O R D E R
K.HEMA, J.
-----------------------------------------------------
Bail Appln. No. 5945 of 2009
-----------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 2nd day of March , 2010.
ORDER
This petition is for anticipatory bail.
2. Petitioner is the first accused in the crime and
the allegations made against him are under Sections 468,
471, 420 and 120(B) IPC. A crime was registered against
petitioner as first accused on the basis of a complaint
made by Senior Manager, Kerala State Financial
Enterprises. The case was transferred to the Crime Branch
and it was re-numbered. According to the prosecution,
petitioner applied for loan and for obtaining the loan he
produced some bogus salary certificates purported to be
issued to 2nd and 3rd accused as sureties. Fourth accused
is the person who is stated to have issued such certificate.
3. Petitioner had filed an earlier application for
anticipatory bail as B.A.No.3767 of 2008. The said
application was dismissed by this Court as per order dated
[B.A.No.5945/09] 2
17.6.2008. At the time of hearing of the said application,
learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that certificates
were obtained in the name of persons who are actually
not in existence. This fact was known to petitioner. On
the submissions made, this court found that it is satisfied
that it was not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the
submissions made by learned Public Prosecutor at the
time of hearing of the earlier bail application was not
correct and hence he has moved this petition again. In
the light of the controversy, second respondent, the
Detective Inspector, CBCID, filed a detailed statement in
which it is re-iterated in paragraph 6 that accused nos. 2
to 4 are fictitious persons. As per the statement,
investigation revealed that there were no such individuals
working at the office of Chief Engineer, Irrigation and
hence the salary certificates are bogus and those were
created with the knowledge, consent and conspiracy of
accused no.1 who committed the offence and cheated
the bank.
[B.A.No.5945/09] 3
5. On hearing both sides, in the light of the
statement made by 2nd respondent, I do not think that
petitioner has any ground to get anticipatory bail. I
would also note that the crime was registered as early
as on 6.10.2003 and more than six years have elapsed
after registration of the crime and on the facts and
circumstances of the case, an interrogation of petitioner
by police may be necessary for an effective investigation.
The long delay caused for interrogation also may affect
the investigation adversely. In such circumstances, I am
least inclined to grant anticipatory bail in a case of this
nature.
6. Petitioner shall report before the investigating
officer or before the trial court within 7 days from today
and make himself available for interrogation.
Petition is dismissed.
K.HEMA, JUDGE.
krs.