Judgment : 1. All the applications are filed by the accused having different ranks in Crime No.1/2012 on the file of the respondent Police, registered for the offences under Section 120(b), 341, 467, 468, 471, 472, 474, 385 IPC r/w Section 12(1)(b), 12(1-A)(a), 12(1-A) (a)(b) and 12(2) of the Passport Act, for an order of bail and anticipatory bail, as the case may be, while Crl.O.P.(MD).No.1271 of 2013 is filed by A1 and A2, who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 29.12.2012, Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1654/2013, is filed by A3, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 06.01.2013 and Crl.O.P.(MD).No.5508/2013 and 4650/2013 are filed by the A7 and A8 to A11, who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 18.02.2013 and 25.02.2013 respectively, for bail whereas Crl.O.P.(MD).No.628/2013, 866/2013, 1657 to 1659/2013 and 2547/2013 are filed by the other accused for anticipatory bail by apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police in the same crime number. 2. Out of the 12 accused, who are before this Court, the accused A1-Jith @ Indirajith and A2 – Iyya @ Sundarajan, are the named accused in the FIR. Though the petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.628 of 2013 by name Prabhakaran is one of the named accused in the FIR, he is not till date shown as accused in the same name. The petitioners 1 & 2 in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.2547 of 2013 are referred to in the FIR by nature of their employment as petition writer inside the collectorate and verification officer of the documents employed in the collectorate. The other petitioners before this Court are unnamed in the FIR. 3. The allegations in the complaint by one Menan @ Indire Menan proceeds as if the accused 1 and 2, along with others and in collusion with passport officials have been indulging acts of obtaining passports on the basis of forged documents. The allegations raised against the officials of the passport office are that they processed the applications without duly verifying the availability and genuineness of the documents produced along with the applications and the members of the banned association LTTE. As already referred to, the complaint is received and registered on 28.12.2012 and thereafter, some of the petitioners before this Court are arrested and remanded to judicial custody on various dates between 29.12.2012 and 25.02.2013. 4. As already referred to, the complaint is received and registered on 28.12.2012 and thereafter, some of the petitioners before this Court are arrested and remanded to judicial custody on various dates between 29.12.2012 and 25.02.2013. 4. The petitioners in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.1271/2013 and 1654/2013 have been seeking an order of bail not only by denying their involvement in the commission of the offences but also by resorting to Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. It is contended by them that they have been languishing in jail for more than 90 days and as on date, the investigation is not completed and charge sheet is not filed, as such they are entitled to statutory bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. 5. The learned Government Advocate would oppose the relief on the ground not only on facts but also on the basis of the pendency of application for extension of time for completing the investigation. It is, on facts, sought to be argued that the offences alleged against the petitioners are so serious in nature and that it is likely to disrupt national integrity and security. The legal objection raised herein is that as the respondent police have been taking steps to book the petitioners for additional offences under the relevant provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and as the time limit stipulated for completing the investigation under the relevant Act is 180 days, the provision of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked herein. 6. Heard the rival submissions made on both sides. 7. On facts, the prima accused, as per the allegations raised herein are the petitioners in Crl.O.P.(MD).Nos.1271 and 1654/2013. They are remanded to judicial custody on 29.12.2013 and 06.01.2013 respectively and completed above 90 days. Though the allegations raised against the petitioners are serious in nature, those petitioners are, as rightly argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners, entitled to bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. As far as the objection raised on the side of the learned Government Advocate on the ground of the petition pending for extension of time is concerned, the same does not deserve merit and acceptance. The reading of the copy of the petition available herein would reveal that except filing a petition for extension of time, on the ground as above referred to, the investigating officer has not taken any efforts to collect any material to include additional offences under the relevant provisions of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act against the petitioners and to file alteration report and thereafter, come forward with an application to extend the time for completion of investigation. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners, has, at this juncture cited the authority reported in (2011) 1 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1099 (Sanjay Kumar Kedia @ Sanjay Kedia Vs. Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau and another). The cited authority is arising out of Section 36-A(4) of the NDPS Act, which is pare-materia the same as Section 43-D(2) (b) under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. The time limit is fixed as 180 days for certain categories of offences and the proviso to those sections authorizes detention for further period, whereas the Supreme Court has in the authority cited laid sown the conditions to be satisfied before seeking extension of time. The conditions provided are : (a) a report of the public prosecutor; (b) which indicates the progress of the investigation; (c) specified the compelling reasons for seeking the detention of the accused beyond the period of 180 days, and (d) after notice to the accused. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, none of the conditions are fulfilled in the present case, as such applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the petition for extension, detention of the petitioners for further period cannot be raised as a valid ground herein. 9. In that event, the respondent police cannot be permitted to oppose these petitions for bail on the ground of pendency of application for extension of time for completing the investigation, as such the petitioners in Crl.O.P.Nos.1271 and 1654 of 2013 are entitled to statutory bail order and are entitled to be released forthwith. 10. As far as the petitioners in Crl.O.P.(MD).Nos.4650 and 5508/2013 are concerned, they are admittedly in judicial remand from 25.02.2013 and 18.02.2013 respectively. 10. As far as the petitioners in Crl.O.P.(MD).Nos.4650 and 5508/2013 are concerned, they are admittedly in judicial remand from 25.02.2013 and 18.02.2013 respectively. They are arrayed as accused herein on the basic of the allegations that the petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.5508/2013 is running a travel agency and other the petitioners in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.4650 of 2013 are his employees and the travel agency is associated with the main accused in arranging for visa for those persons for whom the passports are obtained fraudulently. However, no materials seem to be collected in support of such allegations. Thus, considering the nature of the allegation raised against the petitioners regarding the manner of their participation in the alleged offences and the materials available and the stage of the investigation and the period of their detention and the release of the co-accused, this Court is of the view that the petitioners in Crl.O.P.(MD).Nos. 4650 and 5508/2013 are also entitled to be released on bail. 11. As far as the petitioners in anticipatory bail petitions are concerned, except the petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.628/2013, other petitioners are only (i) the verification officer employed in collectorate, (2) petition writer engaged in writing application for general public, inside the collectorate campus in writing application for general public, inside the collectorate campus and (3) the postmen, who delivered the passports obtained fraudulently to the respective parties. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners, having regard to the nature of their employment, cannot be attributed any knowledge about the genuineness or otherwise of the documents, as such, having regard to the allegations regarding the manner and extent of their participation and other facts and circumstances available herein, this Court is of the view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not necessary and the petitioners are entitled to an order of anticipatory bail. 12. As far as the petitioner – Prabakaran in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.628/2013 is concerned, he is not shown as one of the accused in the same name. Here again, considering the nature of the allegations raised against the petitioner, regarding the manner in which he assisted the defacto complainant and others and the prime accused, and other facts and circumstances and stage of the investigation, this court is of the view that the custodial interrogation of this petitioner is also not warranted. 13. Here again, considering the nature of the allegations raised against the petitioner, regarding the manner in which he assisted the defacto complainant and others and the prime accused, and other facts and circumstances and stage of the investigation, this court is of the view that the custodial interrogation of this petitioner is also not warranted. 13. The learned Government Advocate representing the respondent police is not above to make out any legal and valid objection to refuse to grant bail and anticipatory bail at this stage. It is also not made out that in as the case may be, they are likely to abscond or flee away and they are likely to tamper with the evidence and hamper the investigation process. 14. In the result, all the petitions are ordered and the petitioners in Crl.O.P. (MD).Nos.1271, 1654, 4650, 5508 of 2013 are directed to be leased on bail subject to the following conditions and the petitioners in Crl.O.P.(MD).Nos.628, 866, 1657 to 1659 and 2547 of 2013 are enlarged on bail in the event of their arrest or on their appearance before the Court concerned within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order copy, subject to the following conditions. (i) The petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) each with two sureties each for a like sum of the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pudukkottai; and (ii) The petitioners shall stay at Trichy and appear and sign daily at 11.00 a.m. before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Trichy for four weeks and thereafter, shall appear before the respondent Police as and when required for interrogation. (iii) The petitioners in Crl.O.P.(MD).Nos. 628, 866, 1657 to 1659 and 2547 of 2013 shall follow Section 436 Cr.P.C. scrupulously.