High Court Kerala High Court

K.P.S. Jayan vs State Represented By on 21 July, 2008

Kerala High Court
K.P.S. Jayan vs State Represented By on 21 July, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 4396 of 2008()


1. K.P.S. JAYAN,AGED 49 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. MURALIDHARAN, AGED 41 YEARS,

                        Vs



1. STATE REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.B.PRAJITH

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA

 Dated :21/07/2008

 O R D E R
                           K.HEMA, J.
                --------------------------------------
                 Bail Application No.4396 of 2008
                ---------------------------------------
               Dated this the 21st day of July, 2008


                             O R D E R

This petition is for anticipatory bail.

2. The alleged offences are under Sections 420, 465,

467, 468 and 471 read with Section 120(B) of IPC. According to

the prosecution, the first petitioner was engaged in a business in

exporting and importing of gold ornaments. The defacto

complainant was engaged in purchasing gold and manufacture of

ornaments and thereafter, he supplied the same to various

business concerns. On 15.10.2003, an agreement was executed

between the defacto complainant and the first petitioner that gold

ornaments will be imported by the petitioner on the guarantee

given by the defacto complainant for Rs.20 lakhs before the

Bank. It was also agreed that after one year, the amount will be

paid by the first petitioner and the documents will be redeemed

from the Bank. On these terms, the property of the defacto

complainant having an extent of 2 acre 17 cents were mortgaged

before the Canara Bank main branch. Various other properties

were also mortgaged as guarantee. But the documents were not

BA 4396/08 2

redeemed in spite of expiry of the period. On enquiry, it is

understood that instead of Rs.20 lakhs, the petitioners have

fraudulently raised an amount of Rs.1 Crore 14 lakhs by creating

false documents in collusion with the Bank officials. A complaint

was lodged by the defacto complainant before the police based

on which a crime was registered.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that

there are civil suits between the petitioners and the defacto

complainant relating to money transactions. The present

complaint is lodged only with a view to pressurise the petitioners

to settle the civil dispute, it is submitted. It is pointed out that

when there was an apprehension of arrest on the basis of a

complaint lodged by the defacto complainant, first petitioner

moved B.A.No.3384/2007 before this Court and it was submitted

by learned public prosecutor that no crime was registered against

the petitioner and that he was only summoned in connection with

an enquiry in a petition filed by the defacto complainant.

Anticipatory bail application was disposed of and the defacto

complainant withdrew that petition. Subsequently, the present

complaint is lodged with a view to harass the petitioner with the

BA 4396/08 3

help of the police, it is submitted.

4. On hearing both sides, it appears that as per the

allegations, the bank officials have created false documents by

obtaining the petitioners signature from various documents for

raising Rs.1 crore 14 lakhs as against Rs.20 lakhs which the

defacto complainant had agreed to raise. It also appears that

this is an offshoot of a series of civil disputes and violation of an

agreement executed between the parties.

I heard the learned counsel for the defacto complainant and

the learned public prosecutor also. Counsel for the defacto

complainant submitted that there are materials to incriminate the

petitioner and in case, if bail is granted, the petitioners will leave

the country and they will not be available for trial.

In such circumstances, I find that anticipatory bail can be

granted to the petitioners on conditions.

Hence, the following order is passed:

(1) The petitioners shall surrender before the Investigating

officer within seven days from today and make themselves

available for interrogation.

(2) Thereafter, in the event of arrest of the petitioners, if

BA 4396/08 4

any, they shall be produced before the Magistrate court

concerned in accordance with law.

(3) On production of the petitioners before the Magistrate

court concerned, they shall be released on bail on their

executing bond for Rs.50,000/- each with two solvent

sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the

Magistrate court on the following conditions:

(i) The petitioners shall report before the Investigating

officer as and when directed.

(ii) The petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation.

(iii) The petitioners shall not leave the Kerala State except

with the prior permission of the learned Magistrate.

(iv) The petitioners shall surrender before the passport, if

any, before the Magistrate court concerned within

seven days from release of the petitioners on bail.

(v) The petitioners shall not tamper with evidence

influence or threaten any witness while on bail.

The petition is allowed.

K.HEMA, JUDGE
csl