IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 2708 of 2009()
1. SATHEESAN,S/O.GOPI,
... Petitioner
2. MATHEW K.JOHN,KALARIKKAL THARAYIL,
3. JOHNSON,KARYADI THARAYIL,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL)
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :03/06/2009
O R D E R
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
-----------------------------------
B.A.No.2708 of 2009
-----------------------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2009
ORDER
This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 to
3 in Crime No.162 of 2009 of Mannar Police Station.
2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under
Sections 294(b), 506(i), 419, 420, 465 and 471 of the Indian Penal
Code.
3. The defacto complainant filed a complaint before the Court of
the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-Chengannur, which was forwarded
to the police under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The crime was accordingly registered. The case of the defacto
complainant is that she approached the second accused with a request
to grant loan. Loan was granted. Document of title in respect of the
property of the defacto complainant and a blank signed stamp paper
were handed over to the second accused. It is stated that the
accused persons came to the house of the defacto complainant and
asked to vacate the house. On enquiry, the defacto complainant
came to know that the property belonging to her was transferred as
BA No.2708/2009 2
per a registered document. She did not execute such a document. It
is her case that making impersonation, the document was registered.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that
impersonation would be clear if the thump impression of the defacto
complainant is compared with the thump impression of the executant
of the document as available in the Sub Registrar’s office. No such
investigation was conducted. Prima facie, there is nothing to prove
impersonation. If that aspect is not proved, according to the counsel,
the rest of the allegations would predominantly be a dispute of a civil
nature.
4. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case,
the nature of the offence and other circumstances, I am of the view
that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners. There will be a
direction that in the event of the arrest of the petitioners, the officer in
charge of the police station shall release them on bail for a period of
one month on their executing bond for Rs.25,000/- each with two
solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer
concerned, subject to the following conditions:
a) The petitioners shall report before the investigating officer
between 9 A.M. and 11 A.M. on all Mondays, till the final
report is filed or until further orders;
b) The petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer for
BA No.2708/2009 3
interrogation as and when required;
c) The petitioners shall not try to influence the prosecution
witnesses or tamper with the evidence;
d) The petitioners shall not commit any offence or indulge in any
prejudicial activity while on bail;
e) On the expiry of the period mentioned above, the petitioners
shall surrender before the Magistrate concerned and seek regular
bail;
f) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the
bail shall be liable to be cancelled.
It is made clear that the observations in paragraph 4 are made
only for considering this Bail Application and it shall not be treated as
an observation on the merits of the case.
The Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated above.
K.T.SANKARAN,
JUDGE
csl