IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 5440 of 2007(A)
1. ADV.JOSEPH PRAKASH, THONIKUZHIYIL HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.SHAJI THOMAS PORKKATTIL
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :17/09/2007
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
------------------------------------
B.A.No. 5440 of 2007
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of September, 2007
ORDER
Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner, an Advocate,
faces allegations for offences punishable, inter alia, under Sections 471
and 420 I.P.C.
2. The petitioner had allegedly purchased a vehicle, which
stood in the name of one Ravindran as per the registration certificate,
from one Jobin. He had paid the amount due to the said Jobin. After
getting the relevant documents from the said Jobin, he had submitted
the registration certificate along with the requisite applications to
transfer the vehicle to his name. At the office of the Motor Vehicles
Department, it was realised that there was some fraud in respect of
the registration certificate. The authority complained to the local
police. Crime has been registered. Investigation is in progress. The
petitioner apprehends imminent arrest.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is absolutely innocent. The petitioner had no knowledge of
the alleged fraud in respect of the registration certificate. If he had
known of such fraud, it is improbable – nay impossible, that the
petitioner, an Advocate, would have chosen to get the vehicle
B.A.No. 5440 of 2007 2
transferred to his name. This must convey to the Court that the
petitioner is himself an innocent victim of the fraud played by some
other person. The petitioner is not now able to specify whether his
transferee Jobin or the registered owner Ravindran or any other
person is really responsible for the commission of the offence. The
petitioner only submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent. The
petitioner shall co-operate with the investigator to ascertain the truth.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that another person,
who purchased a vehicle from the said Jobin does find himself also in a
similar situation as the vehicle sold to such person by the said Jobin is
also found to be not having a proper registration certificate. That
registration certificate also has the same engine and chasis numbers,
submits the learned counsel. The learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner shall co-operate with the investigator in
every possible manner, but the petitioner may be saved of the
undeserved trauma of arrest and detention in custody.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor does not oppose the
application. The learned Public Prosecutor only submits that the
contumacious and culpable role if any of the petitioner has got to be
further probed into in detail. The prosecution has no objection in grant
of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. But the same may be done only
B.A.No. 5440 of 2007 3
subject to appropriate conditions which shall ensure the interests of a
fair, efficient and expeditious investigation. I am satisfied that the
petitioner can be granted anticipatory bail. In the circumstances
explained above, it is not necessary to advert to facts in any greater
detail.
5. In the result, the Bail Application is, allowed. The following
directions are issued under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
i) The petitioner shall appear before the learned Magistrate at
11 a.m on 24.09.2007. He shall be enlarged on regular bail on his
executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with
two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the
learned Magistrate;
ii) The petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation
before the Investigating Officer between 10 a.m and 3 p.m on
25.09.2007 and 26.09.2007 and thereafter between 10 a.m and 12
noon on all Mondays and Fridays for a period of one month.
Subsequently the petitioner shall make himself available for
interrogation before the Investigating Officer as and when directed by
the Investigating Officer in writing to do so;
iii) If the petitioner does not appear before the learned
Magistrate as directed in clause (i), directions issued above shall
B.A.No. 5440 of 2007 4
thereafter stand revoked and the police shall be at liberty to arrest the
petitioner and deal with him in accordance with law as if those
directions were not issued at all;
iv) If the petitioner were arrested prior to his surrender on
24.09.07 as directed in clause (1) above, he shall be released from
custody on his executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
thousand only) without any sureties undertaking to appear before the
learned Magistrate on 24.09.07.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-