ABDUL HARIF Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is the 2nd accused in Crime No. 449/2006 of areakode Police Station registered under sections 420, 465, 471, 472 and 474 read with Section 34 of IPC and under Section 3 (1) (A) and 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and under Section 12 (1) (B) of the Passport Act. The allegation is that he had fraudulently created passports and got them issued through passport Office, Malappuram with the connivance of the Passport authorities. According to the petitioner, he has been wrongly implicated as an accused in the case and he has absolutely no involvement in the case. According to him, it was at his instance, a case has been registered against the first accused. At the same time, the case of the prosecution is that the petitioner cannot claim innocent of the allegations. He is also having a role to play in the matter and therefore, it is absolutely necessary to conduct investigation on the full aspects of the case and therefore the prosecution opposes granting of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

(2.) CONSIDERING the nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioner and the nature of the allegations levelled in the matter, I think anticipatory bail cannot be granted to the petitioner. However, the petitioner can be directed to surrender before the Investigating officer and to have his application for regular bail considered by the magistrate having competent jurisdiction. For that purpose, he shall surrender before the Investigating Officer on any day between 19. 5. 2009 and 22. 5. 2009. In the event of such surrender, the petitioner shall be produced before the concerned Magistrate Court on that day itself and the learned Magistrate shall consider his application for regular bail, if moved, preferably on the same day on which it is moved, in accordance with law.