IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 3570 of 2010()
1. KAMARUDHEEN PUTHIYANDI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :29/06/2010
O R D E R
K.HEMA, J.
----------------------------------------------
Bail Application No.3570 of 2010
----------------------------------------------
Dated 29th June, 2010.
O R D E R
This petition is for anticipatory bail.
2. The alleged offences are under Sections 417, 468
and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, a
passport was issued to petitioner, where there was no
endorsement in respect of immigration clearance. Such
endorsement (in respect of immigration clearance) will be given
only if the person passes SSLC. Petitioner had not passed SSLC to
get the clearance. But his passport was submitted along with a
forged relevant page of SSLC book for getting such clearance.
The document was sent to the school for confirmation and it was
found that the document was forged.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that
petitioner is innocent of the allegations made. He only gave the
passport to the travel agency and he is not aware of any forgery
committed. It is also pointed out that the same allegations would
constitute offences under the Passport Act, which are bailable.
But, now the crime is registered under various offences under the
BA NO. 3570/10 2
Indian Penal Code, which are non-bailable.
4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor
submitted that petitioner’s interrogation is necessary to find out
the details and the manner in which the forgery is committed. It
was for the benefit of petitioner that an endorsement of clearance
is sought to be procured by producing a forged document.
Petitioner cannot wriggle out of the responsibility stating that
travel agents have committed some forgery etc.
5. On hearing both sides, I find that there is an
allegation of forgery committed by petitioner for the purpose of
procuring the relevant endorsement in the passport. In order to
ascertain the manner in which the offence is committed,
petitioner’s interrogation will be necessary. Hence, this is not a fit
case to grant anticipatory bail. Even if some bailable offences
under the Passport Act are involved, that is not a reason to say
that offence of forgery is not prima facie involved in this case.
Petition is dismissed.
K.HEMA, JUDGE.
tgs