High Court Kerala High Court

Mohammed Nishad vs The State Of Kerala on 4 March, 2010

Kerala High Court
Mohammed Nishad vs The State Of Kerala on 4 March, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 275 of 2010()


1. MOHAMMED NISHAD, AGED 20 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

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

 Dated :04/03/2010

 O R D E R
                       K.T.SANKARAN, J.
                 ---------------------------------------------
                       B.A.No.275 of 2010
                 ---------------------------------------------
              Dated this the 4th day of March, 2010


                              O R D E R

This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section

438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused

No.1 in Cr.No.9 of 2010 of Changaramkulam Police Station.

2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under

Sections 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 12(b)

of the Passport Act.

3. The prosecution case is that the accused persons,

three in number, forged a birth certificate as if it was issued by

Nannammukku Grama Panchayath in favour of the first accused

and it was produced before the passport office, Malappuram in

order to get a passport for the first accused. The first accused

obtained the passport. The passport office verified the

correctness and genuineness of the birth certificate with

Nannammukku Grama Panchayath. The Panchayath reported

that they had not issued any such certificate.

4. The petitioner states that he is a college student and

that he wanted to go abroad. It is also stated that after the crime

BA No.275/2010 2

was detected, he surrendered the passport. Both these aspects

are not grounds for granting anticipatory bail. The offences

alleged against the accused are serious in nature. Custodial

interrogation may be required in the case. In the facts and

circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the petitioner is

not entitled to get the discretionary relief under Section 438 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed.

K.T.SANKARAN,
JUDGE
csl