IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 3610 of 2010()
1. PADMANABHAN,AGED 59 YEARS,RASAYALAM,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY C.I. OF
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.M.Y.VARGHESEKUTTY
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :17/08/2010
O R D E R
K.HEMA, J
-----------------------
B.A No.3610 OF 2010
--------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of August 2010
ORDER
This petition is for anticipatory bail.
2. The alleged offences are under Sections 12, 1(b) of Indian
Passport Act and Section 468 and 471 of I.P.C. According to
prosecution, de facto complainant handed over his passport to
second accused for arranging visa. When second accused went to
Dubai, he handed over the passport to third accused. Since
de facto complainant did not get the passport returned to him in
spite of repeated demands, he applied for a fresh passport. He was
informed by the authorities that his old passport was seen renewed
already with the photograph of another person who is first accused
in this case. Therefore, a complaint was lodged and a crime was
registered under the above said sections on the allegation that
forgery etc. are committed by accused numbers 1 to 3 in
furtherance of common intention.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner
(A3) is absolutely innocent of the allegations made. De facto
complainant has no case in the FIS that he had handed over the
passport to petitioner. Petitioner is not even known to de facto
complainant. When the case was registered against second
accused, the name of third accused is mentioned by him only with
B.A No.3610 OF 2010 2
a view to wriggle out of the criminal liability. Petitioner is
absolutely innocent and hence, he may be granted anticipatory
bail, it is submitted.
4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor
submitted that though the FIS does not reveal the name of
petitioner, but, on investigation, it is revealed that the passport
was handed over to petitioner by second accused and that the
old passport which was issued in the name of de facto
complainant was renewed with the photograph of first accused.
Third accused is working as an assistant to a person who
arranges passport and is stationed near the passport office.
Petitioner’s custodial interrogation is necessary for getting
further details about the nature of forgery committed and for an
effective investigation. First and second accused are not so far
arrested. The crime is registered as early as on 05/03/2010.
5. On hearing both sides and on considering the rival
contentions, I am satisfied that petitioner will be required for
custodial interrogation to ascertain the details of the alleged
forgery etc. Considering serious nature of alleagtions also, I find
that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioner is
bound to surrender and co-operate with investigation.
This petition is dismissed.
K.HEMA
vdv JUDGE