High Court Kerala High Court

Suresh vs State Of Kerala on 9 July, 2009

Kerala High Court
Suresh vs State Of Kerala on 9 July, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 3240 of 2009()


1. SURESH
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN

 Dated :09/07/2009

 O R D E R
                      K.T. SANKARAN, J.
                  ---------------------------
                    B.A. No. 3240 of 2009
               ------------------------------------
              Dated this the 9th day of July, 2009

                          O R D E R

This is an application for anticipatory bail under

Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner

is the 2nd accused in Crime No.7/2009 of Murickassery Police

Station, Thodupuzha.

2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are

under Sections 120 B, 419, 420, 465, 468 and 471 read with

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code

3. The defacto complainant filed a complaint before

the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Idukki, which was

forwarded to the police for investigation under Section 156(3)

of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The crime was accordingly

registered.

4. The allegation made by the defacto complainant is

that on 24/12/2008, officials from ‘Mahindra and Mahindra’

came to her house and informed her that she was liable as a

surety on account of loan taken by the second accused in

B.A. No. 3240/ 2009
Page numbers

respect of a vehicle. On enquiry, it was revealed that the accused

persons have stolen the revenue receipts in respect of the

property of the defacto complainant, from her house, and

created documents by impersonation, to make it appear that the

defacto complainant stood as a surety for the loan transactions.

5. 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 petitioner.

There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the

petitioner, the officer in charge of the police station shall release

him on bail on his executing bond for Rs.25,000/- with two

solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the

officer concerned, subject to the following conditions:

A) The petitioner shall appear before the
investigating officer for interrogation as and
when required;

B) The petitioner shall not try to influence the
prosecution witnesses or tamper with the
evidence.

C) The petitioner shall not commit any offence or
indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail.

D) In case of breach of any of the conditions

B.A. No. 3240/ 2009
Page numbers

mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to be
cancelled.

The Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated

above.

K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE

scm