IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 6TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 15TH KARTHIKA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6644 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.20/2004 OF KADAKKAVOOR POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- M.REGHU, S/O. MADHAVAN UNNITHAN "MUKTHI" THOTTAKKATTU P.O., KALLAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI SMT.SMITHA GEORGE SRI.C.R.RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KADAKKAVOOR POLICE STATION, KADAKKAVOOR. 2. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, DCRB (RURAL),THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.6644 of 2008 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th November, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 419, 468 and 34 IPC. According to prosecution, first accused's mother had 8 cents of property. The said property was mortgaged in favour of a Co-operative Society to raise a loan. The first accused paid the entire loan amount and made another lady to personate herself as his mother and clandestinely obtained the document from the bank. Thereafter, using the same method, he created a sale deed purporting to be executed by his mother in favour of one Sunil Sreedharan. Thereafter, Sunil Sreedharan sold the property to Vilasini Chandran. From the said person, the property was purchased by first accused's wife. She again sold it to one Babu, who is the defacto complainant. Thereafter, when the said Babu was abroad, on 8.1.2003, by impersonating him a sale deed was executed in favour of first accused. A7 is the Registrar who allowed the assignor not to affix the thump impression in the document. He is empowered to exempt BA No. 6644/2008 2 affixing of thump impression in the document under Section 73(1) of Registration Rules, provided he knew the party personally. The defacto complainant is not even known to A7, but, he allowed the person, who impersonated himself as the defacto complainant, not to affix thump impression, under a wrong claim that he knew him. All these were done in pursuance of common intention of all accused. A1 and A7 are closely acquainted with each other. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is a Sub Registrar, who only allows a document to be executed when the executant is identified by another. He is absolutely innocent of the allegations made. The execution of document was in the year 2003 and the present allegation is made in the year 2008 at a highly belated stage. It is also pointed out that it is not correct to say that petitioner did not know the defacto complainant. The order of the learned Sessions Judge shows that both of them were closely acquainted with each other. Therefore, the fact that he allowed the assignor to execute document without affixing thump impression will not incriminate him, it is submitted. Petitioner may not be required BA No. 6644/2008 3 for any recovery and even if petitioner is required for interrogation, he is prepared to surrender before the police and co-operate. But, if anticipatory bail is refused, he will be detained in custody and it will result in serious injury and loss to petitioner, it is submitted. 4. This petition is strongly opposed. Learned public prosecutor submitted that the allegations made against petitioner are serious in nature. The petitioner, who is the Sub Registrar, who is a public servant has misused his office and committed the offences in furtherance of common intention with other accused. Though in the order of the learned Sessions Judge, it is mentioned that petitioner is closely acquainted with the defacto complainant, it could only be a clerical error, it is submitted. The case diary reveals that petitioner is closely acquainted with first accused and not defacto complainant and A7 had shared common intention with first accused to commit offence, it is submitted. 5. In fact, as per the case diary, petitioner allowed a person, who has personated himself as the defacto complainant, to execute document with the knowledge that he is not the BA No. 6644/2008 4 defacto complainant, it is submitted. The fact that he allowed such person not to affix the thump impression is an incriminating material against petitioner which reveals his criminal intention, it is submitted. It has also pointed out that after perusal of the entire records, sanction is afforded by the Government under Section 197 Crl.P.C. to prosecute petitioner, who is a public servant. In a case of this nature, it is not proper to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 6. On hearing both sides, considering the serious allegations made, the nature of investigation required as revealed from the case diary, I am satisfied that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. It is true that there is delay in making a complaint, but, it appears that defacto complainant came to know about the commission of offence only much later. 7. The crime was registered as early as on 29.1.2004. Petitioner was implicated as an accused as early as in April 2008 and he has not available for interrogation or investigation. In such circumstances, I am satisfied that petitioner having subjected to this court's jurisdiction a direction is to be issued to him to surrender before the police and co-operate with the BA No. 6644/2008 5 investigation. Hence, petitioner is directed to surrender before the Magistrate Court concerned or the Investigating Officer and co-operate with the investigation without any delay. Whether petitioner surrenders or not before the Investigating Officer, police will be at liberty to arrest the petitioner at any time. With this direction, this petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE csl