IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 4005 of 2007()
1. JOHNY KURIAKOSE, PULINGOM,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :04/07/2007
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
-------------------------------------------------
B.A.NO.4005 OF 2007
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of July, 2007
ORDER
Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner is the 1st
accused in a crime registered, inter alia, under Sec.420 of the
IPC. The crux of the allegations against the petitioner is that
he, using bogus and non-genuine pattas, had defrauded the
banks and induced them to part with loan amounts. The
pattas were not genuine and were obtained fraudulently by the
1st accused in collusion with the 2nd accused. A crime has been
registered on the basis of a complaint filed after the fraud was
discovered in the course of the revenue recovery proceedings
by the officials. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner
apprehends imminent arrest. The 2nd accused is allegedly a
person employed in the Land Tribunal. In collusion with him,
the petitioner is alleged to have brought into existence the
B.A. NO. 4005 of 2007 -: 2 :-
non-genuine pattas.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is absolutely innocent. The learned counsel points
out that the pattas in question are not the ones issued in his
name. They are issued in the name of the father and the brother
of the petitioner. The petitioner had only acted as the holder of
their Power-of-Attorney to pledge the documents and avail loan
from the financial institutions. In these circumstances, the
petitioner does not deserve to suffer the trauma of undeserved
arrest and detention. Anticipatory bail may be granted to the
petitioner, prays the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application.
The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the investigation is
at a very early stage. It would be puerile now to assume that
the petitioner – the Power-of-Attorney holder, has no
contumacious responsibility for the culpable indiscretion
committed and that all blame can be left at the doors of the
father and brother of the petitioner in whose names the pattas
now stand. At any rate, the petitioner may not be permitted to
arm himself with an order of anticipatory bail which would
effectively frustrate the ability of the Investigator to discover and
arrive at the truth. Custodial interrogation is absolutely
B.A. NO. 4005 of 2007 -: 3 :-
essential in a case like this to unravel the truth, submits the
learned Public Prosecutor.
3. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit
in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. This, I am
satisfied, is a fit case where the extraordinary equitable
discretion under Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C. can or ought to be
invoked in favour of the petitioner. This is an eminently fit case
where the petitioner must resort to the normal and ordinary
procedure of appearing before the Investigating Officer or the
learned Magistrate having jurisdiction. He must then seek
regular bail in the ordinary course.
4. In the result, this petition is dismissed. But I may
hasten to observe that if the petitioner surrenders before the
Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate and seeks bail,
after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of
the case, the learned Magistrate must proceed to pass
appropriate orders on merits and expeditiously – on the date of
surrender itself.
Sd/-
(R. BASANT, JUDGE)
Nan/
//true copy// P.S. To Judge