High Court Kerala High Court

V.P.Abdurahiman vs State Of Kerala on 18 September, 2007

Kerala High Court
V.P.Abdurahiman vs State Of Kerala on 18 September, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl No. 5599 of 2007()


1. V.P.ABDURAHIMAN, S/O.MUHAMMED,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :18/09/2007

 O R D E R
                          R. BASANT, J.
            -------------------------------------------------
                     B.A. No. 5599 OF 2007
            -------------------------------------------------
         Dated this the 18th day of September, 2007

                               ORDER

Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner faces

allegations of having committed offences punishable, inter alia,

under Sec.468 of the IPC. He is the 1st accused. Altogether,

there are two accused persons. The crux of the allegations is

that the 2nd accused was introduced to the de facto

complainant by the petitioner. The de facto complainant is a

financier. He had advanced loan to the 2nd accused and the

Registration Certificate of a vehicle was produced before the

de facto complainant by the 2nd accused. That Registration

Certificate now turns out to be a forged one. The transaction

took place in March 2006. Twice earlier apprehending that

proceedings may be initiated against the petitioner and the

petitioner may be arrested, the petitioner had gone before the

B.A. NO.5599 of 2007 -: 2 :-

learned Sessions Judge seeking anticipatory bail. On both such

occasions, it was reported that the petitioner is not required to

be arrested. But now the petitioner understands that a crime

has been registered. He apprehends imminent arrest.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner is absolutely innocent. Even going by the allegations,

the petitioner has no better or contumacious role than

introducing the 2nd accused to the de facto complainant and from

that simple act it would be unjust to assume that the petitioner

had any contumacious or culpable intent. The petitioner is

willing to co-operate with the Investigator. Subject to

appropriate conditions the petitioner may be granted

anticipatory bail, prays the learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application.

The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the de facto

complainant knew only the 1st accused and it was the 1st accused

who introduced the 2nd accused to him. The 2nd accused, it is

submitted, is now abroad.

4. Having considered all the relevant circumstances,

notwithstanding the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor,

I am satisfied that directions under Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C. can be

issued in favour of the petitioner subject, of course, to

B.A. NO.5599 of 2007 -: 3 :-

appropriate conditions which shall zealously ensure the interests

of a fair, adequate and expeditious investigation.

5. In the result, this petition is allowed. Following

directions are issued under Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C:

(i) The petitioner shall appear before the learned

Magistrate having jurisdiction at 11 a.m. on 25/9/07. He shall be

released on regular bail on his executing a bond for Rs.50,000/-

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 26/9/07 and 27/9/07 and thereafter on all Mondays

and Fridays between 10 a.m. and 12 noon for a period of two

months. Subsequently, he shall so 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

thereafter stand revoked and the police shall be at liberty to

arrest the petitioner and deal with him in accordance with law as

if these directions were not issued at all;

(iv) If the petitioner were arrested prior to his surrender

B.A. NO.5599 of 2007 -: 4 :-

on 25/9/07 as directed in clause (i) above, he shall be released on

his executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- without any sureties

undertaking to appear before the learned Magistrate on 25/9/07.

Sd/-

(R. BASANT, JUDGE)

Nan/

//true copy//

P.S. to Judge