IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 7959 of 2008()
1. AYYAPPAN EZHUTHACHAN S/O. RAMAN,
... Petitioner
2. RUGMANI, W/O. AYYAPPAN EZHUTHACHAN,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.RAJIT
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :11/02/2009
O R D E R
K. HEMA, J.
---------------------------------------------------
Bail Appl. No. 7959 of 2008
--------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of February, 2009.
ORDER
Petition for anticipatory bail.
2. The alleged offences are under Sections 120(B),
416, 417, 419, 420, 423, 463, 464, 467, 468, 471, 474 r/w 34 of
IPC. According to prosecution, petitioners, who are father-in-law
and mother-in-law of de facto complainant created a forged
Power of Attorney purportedly executed by de facto complainant
and her husband and transferred the property which stands in
their joint name to the name of 2nd petitioner, who is the mother-
in-law and then in favour of de facto complainant’ s son. The
signature of husband as well as de facto complainant are forged
in that Power of Attorney and hence, the complaint.
3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that de
facto complainant had married petitioners’ son in the year 1987.
59 cents of land stood in the name of de facto complainant and
her husband. In the year 1995, a power of attorney was
executed by them in favour of first petitioner’s father-in-law for
sale of property. In the year 1997, on the strength of power
attorney, the property was sold in the name of mother-in-law
first and then to the child. The child was kept in the custody of
petitioners by the father, since he had some difference of
opinion with de facto complainant. Petitioners were looking after
the child but now de facto complainant had taken away the
child. The execution of the deed was in the year 1997 and
petitioners’ son (de facto complainant’s husband) is no more.
[B.A.No.7959/08] 2
After 11 years, in 2008, a false complaint was filed to harass
petitioners, it is submitted.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioners
may be required for interrogation and subject to that he has no
objection in granting anticipatory bail, since the property is in the
name of de facto complainant.
5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that
anticipatory bail can be granted to petitioners. Hence, the
following order is passed:
Petitioners shall surrender before the Magistrate
Court concerned within 7 days from today and
they shall be released on bail on their executing
bond for Rs.25,000/- each with two solvent
sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction
of learned Magistrate, on the following conditions:
i) Petitioners shall report before the
investigating officer within four days
from the date of release on bail and
co-operate with the interrogation.
ii) Petitioners shall report before the
investigating officer as and when
directed.
ii) The petitioners shall not influence or
intimidate any witness or tamper
with evidence or commit any offence
while on bail.
This petition is allowed.
K. HEMA, JUDGE.
krs.