IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 7579 of 2008()
1. HUSSAIN AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.EASA,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.K.DIVAKARAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :06/01/2009
O R D E R
K. HEMA, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
B.A. No. 7579 of 2008
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 6th day of January,2009
O R D E R
Petition for anticipatory bail.
2. The alleged offences are under sections 419, 420, 467,
468, 471 and 34 IPC. According to prosecution, property, which
stands in the name of 3rd accused and his former wife (de facto
complainant), was sold by executing a document by 3rd accused
and his present wife (who is the 4th accused) and thereby, in
furtherance of common intention she personated herself as
former wife, while executing the document. The document was
attested by accused 6 and 7. Seventh accused is petitioner
herein. All of them committed the offence in furtherance of the
common intention and de facto complainant filed a private
complaint, based on which the crime was registered.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that
petitioner is apprehending arrest alleging that he only executed
the document as a witness. Petitioner is absolutely innocent. In
the complaint no specific allegation was made against petitioner,
but he was implicated in the offence only at a belated stage and
that there are only four accused in the complaint. The name of
BA 7579/08 -2-
former wife and present wife are one and the same and hence,
he has not committed any offence knowingly. But it is conceded
that petitioner is a friend of 3rd accused.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that this is a
clear case where the property belongs to de facto complainant
which stands in the joint name of herself and 3rd accused was
assigned by executing a document by 4th accused personating
herself to be de facto complainant and this was done with the
connivance and knowledge of all the accused. They have
committed the offence in furtherance of common intention. It is
not a fit case to grant bail at this stage case to grant anticipatory
bail, it is submitted.
5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied of the submissions
made by learned Public Prosecutor. Considering the nature of
allegations made, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail.
6. Crime was registered as early as on 25-11-2007 and
petitioner has not so far surrendered before the court or before
the police.
Hence, petitioner is directed to surrender
before the police without any delay and co-operate
with the investigation. Whether he surrenders or not,
BA 7579/08 -3-
police is at liberty to arrest him and proceed in
accordance with law.
With this direction, this petition is dismissed.
K.HEMA, JUDGE.
mn.