IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 4167 of 2010()
1. SUBAIRKUTTY, SON OF USMAN KUNJU,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :13/07/2010
O R D E R
K.HEMA, J.
------------------
B.A. No.4167 of 2010
------------------------------------
Dated this the 13th day of July, 2010
O R D E R
This petition is for bail.
2. The alleged offences are under Sections 464, 465, 471
r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, Transport
Commissioner preferred a complaint to the I.G of police stating
that certain Ophthalmologist certificates produced for obtaining
driving licence were forged. I.G of police, in turn, forwarded the
complaint to the Superintendent of Police. Superintendent of
Police directed the Dy.SP, Crime Branch to conduct an
investigation in the matter.
3. IG of police had conducted an enquiry and found that
about 15 driving licences were produced before the office of the
RTO and one of such driving licence was produced by petitioner.
Along with the application for driving licence, ophthalmologist
report was produced in respect of a person who had learned
driving through the driving school of petitioner. Therefore, a
crime was registered against petitioner. Petitioner was arrested.
On investigation, it was revealed that petitioner along with his
brother-in-law and another person (A2 and A3) had forged
ophthalmologist certificate for the purpose of obtaining the
driving licence.
B.A. No.4167 of 2010 2
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner
is absolutely innocent of the allegations made. It is submitted
that owner of another driving school was granted anticipatory bail
by the Sessions Court though some similar allegations are made
against him also. Petitioner is in custody for the past 15 days.
Investigation is almost completed, it is submitted.
4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor
submitted that the matter is being investigated into. Second and
third accused are not so far arrested to find out the manner in
which the certificates are forged. Their arrest and custodial
interrogation are necessary. At this stage, if petitioner is granted
bail, it will adversely affect the investigation, it is submitted. It is
also pointed out that anticipatory bail was not granted to any
co-accused in this case. The anticipatory bail order which was
referred to by petitioner is issued in favour of another accused, in
another crime and the reason shown was “as of now, there is
nothing to implicate the petitioner in the crime”. It cannot be
made a ground to grant anticipatory bail to petitioner in this case.
5. On hearing both sides and on going through the
documents produced and considering the serious nature of the
B.A. No.4167 of 2010 3
allegations made, the nature of investigation required in this case
and the fact that the co-accused are not so far arrested, I am
satisfied that if bail is granted to petitioner at this stage, it is
likely that the investigation will be affected adversely. It is true
that anticipatory bail was granted to another accused by the
Sessions Court. But, in that case, the case diary did not reveal
anything against petitioner. That cannot be made a reason to
release petitioner on bail. Petitioner was arrested and materials
are obtained in the investigation.
This petition is dismissed.
K. HEMA, JUDGE
vdv