IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 6779 of 2008()
1. MANOJ SEBASTIAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. S.I.OF POLICE
For Petitioner :SRI.C.P.SAJI
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :21/11/2008
O R D E R
K. HEMA, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
B.A. No. 6779 of 2008
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 21st day of November,2008
O R D E R
Petition for anticipatory bail.
2. The alleged offences are under sections 417, 420, 423,
465, 467,468, 471 read with section 34 IPC. According to
prosecution, de facto complainant’s son purchased an extent of
property belonging to accused 2 to 4 on court auction.
Thereafter, 5th accused in furtherance of common intention with
other accused forged a sale agreement purporting to be
executed in favour of 1st accused in respect of the property
which was sold in favour of de facto complainant. On the basis of
a forged agreement, a suit was filed as O.S.no.99/2008.
Agreement was dated 28-2-2008, but stamp paper was post-
dated as 17-6-2008. This fact was pointed out to court (which
apparently revealed that it was a clear case of forgery) and
hence, the suit was dismissed for default. Therefore, de facto
complainant, as power of attorney of his son, filed a private
complaint alleging various offences stated above against
accused 1 to 6.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that
petitioner is absolutely innocent of the allegations made.
Property, which is allegedly sold in court auction, belongs to
BA 6779/08 -2-
petitioner as well. It will be clear from the private complaint
itself. Petitioner has persuaded de facto complainant’s son to
purchase the property in court auction. But , thereafter, 1st
accused created some document in respect of the property, for
which petitioner is not responsible. Since de facto complainant’s
son was dismissed petitioner from service, he has falsely
implicated petitioner in this case also, it is submitted.
4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor
submitted that petitioner is having criminal background. He is a
convict in a case before the Special Court for the trial of cases of
C.B.I. Warrants were issued against him in a long pending case in
a Magistrate Court. The 5th accused has been dismissed from de
facto complainant’s sons’ firm on allegation of misappropriation.
The 5th accused has a main role in forging the document with a
view to defeat the de facto complainant’s son’s right. To such
person anticipatory bail may not be granted, it is submitted. On
the facts in this case, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail.
The involvement of 5th accused has to be ascertained by
investigation and his interrogation is required, it is submitted.
5. On hearing both sides and on considering the nature of
allegations made and the nature of investigation required, I am
BA 6779/08 -3-
satisfied that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory hail. In the
nature of the allegations made, interrogation of petitioner will be
required to find out the facts which are within the exclusive
knowledge of petitioner. The fact that warrants have been issued
against him in another case and he is required for trial also
dissuades me from invoking provision under section 438 Cr.P.C.
Petitioner is directed to surrender before the
Investigating Officer without any delay and co-operate
with the investigation. Whether he surrenders or not,
police is at liberty to arrest him and proceed in
accordance with law.
With this direction, this petition is dismissed.
K.HEMA, JUDGE.
mn.