IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 4382 of 2010()
1. BEENA, AGED 34 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :23/07/2010
O R D E R
K. HEMA, J
----------------------
B.A.No.4382 OF 2010
-----------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2010
O R D E R
This petition is for bail.
2. The alleged offences are under sections 466, 468, 471
and 34 IPC and section 12(b) of Passport Act. According to
prosecution, first and second accused are associates. First
accused lost his passport from abroad. He approached second
accused for arranging another passport. Second accused
approached third accused who is a travel agent. Fourth accused
is an employee in the travel agency. Fifth and sixth accused
forged certain documents for using the same as genuine and
handed over the same to third accused. Fourth accused on
knowing that documents are forged, prepared an application
incorporating false details for the purpose of issuance of passport.
In respect of this transaction, second accused had paid
Rs.25,000/- to third accused. Passport was issued in the name of
first accused based on forged documents and all accused in
furtherance of common intention committed the offences, stated
above.
B.A. No.4382/10 2
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner
is a woman, who is only an employee of third accused. She has
no role in the alleged forgery. In her capacity as an employee,
she only filled up the application form which was handed over to
her with certain documents. There is no allegation that she had
taken any money or gratification from any person in the
transaction. There is no case that petitioner herself forged the
relevant documents in this case. Petitioner was arrested on
8.7.2010 and she was in custody for the past 15 days.
4. Learned public prosecutor submitted that main
allegations are against 3rd, 5th and 6th accused. He has no
objection in extending benefit of proviso to Sec.437 Cr.P.C. to
petitioner, taking into account her limited role in the offence. On
hearing both sides, I am satisfied that bail can be granted to
petitioner on conditions. Hence the following order is passed:
Petitioner shall be released on bail on her
executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- with two solvent
sureties each for the like amount to the
satisfaction of the learned Magistrate, on
following conditions:
B.A. No.4382/10 3
1) Petitioner shall report before the
investigating officer as and when directed.
2) Petitioner shall not influence or intimidate
the witnesses or tamper with evidence.
3) In case petitioner is involved in other crime
of similar nature, the bail is liable to be
cancelled.
This petition is allowed.
K. HEMA, JUDGE.
Sou.