Muhammed Sudheer vs State Of Kerala

P.G. Ajithkumar, J

This is an application for anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.1184 of 2021 of Central Police Station, Ernakulam. The offences alleged are under Sections 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The allegations are that the petitioner forged identity card and enrollment certificate of the Bar Council of Kerala and presented the same in the Embassy of the United Kingdom purporting to be the original documents issued in his name, for the purpose of obtaining a Visa to immigrate to the United Kingdom. Therefore, the petitioner committed the alleged offences.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

The learned Public Prosecutor has placed on record the report of the Sub Inspector of Police, Central Police Station, Ernakulam

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that it was the petitioner, who was really cheated by the travel agent and for no fault of him, he is now accused of forging the documents. It is submitted that as is evident from Annexure A2, a copy of a partially completed application of the petitioner for Visa, his job was stated to be Home Stay Business and on dismissing the same, the travel agent resubmitted the application with the forged documents. Accordingly, the learned counsel submit that the petitioner is innocent in that matter and his arrest and detention will cause untold miseries to him.

The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, would contend that when an application for Visa signed by the petitioner was submitted along with such identity card and enrollment certificate, he cannot show ignorance of the source of such documents. From the investigation so far conducted, it has been revealed that it was the petitioner, who created the documents. Even inspite of giving a notice under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Code, the petitioner did not choose to appear before the investigating officer. The learned Public Prosecutor, pointing out the above circumstances, submits that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is absolutely necessary for the investigation. It is also submitted that in the event of granting him bail, the petitioner will go abroad.

Crime was registered on the basis of a complaint of the Secretary, Bar Council of Kerala. An identity card and enrollment certificate in the name of the petitioner are submitted before the Embassy of U.K. When such documents were produced along with an application signed by the petitioner, he cannot show ignorance of the genesis of the said document and claims to be innocent. When a forged document is submitted before a public authority purporting it to be the original document, offence under Section 471 of the I.P.C. is complete. Therefore, the contention raised by the petitioner that he was totally innocent and it was the travel agent, who created the documents falsely cannot be accepted.

Considering the nature of offence, detention of the petitioner during the period of investigation may not be absolutely necessary. But, for a proper investigation co-operation of the petitioner is necessary unless he is properly interrogated and necessary details have to be collected, the investigation cannot be taken to a logical end. In these circumstances I am of the view that the petitioner can be directed to surrender before the investigating officer. Hence, the bail application is dismissed, with a direction to the petitioner to surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks from today. In the event of his surrendering before the investigating officer, after interrogation and recovery, if any, the petitioner shall be produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate within the period stipulated under Section 57 of the Cr.P.C. On production, the learned Magistrate shall consider the bail application, if any, is filed as expeditiously as possible, preferably on the same day itself.