IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2009 /24TH POUSHA, 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7321 of 2008 ------------------------------------ CRIME No.556/2008 OF ARANMULA POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSDED -------------------------------------- 1. LOVE MANGALATH, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.THANKAPPAN, MANGALATH HOUSE, KARAMVELI, MALLAPPUZHASSERY VILLAGE. 2. RANJITH, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.NANDAKUMAR, AIKKANAR HOUSE, ELANTHOOR (P.O)ELANTHOOR. BY ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN SRI.SAIJO HASSAN SRI.A.S.SABU RESPONDENT/STATE ------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------------------- B.A.No.7321 of 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 14th day of January, 2009 ORDER Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. Alleged offences are under Sections 342, 394 and 506(1) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, first accused is a broker and defacto complainant had sold 1 acre and 72 cents of property through him.. There was some quarrel in connection with the commission payable to first accused. When the property was being surveyed, first accused along with the other accused assaulted defcto complainant and also procured two cheques, two stamp papers and 3 blank signed papers from defacto complainant and thereby committed the various offences. The incident occurred on 4.10.2008. 3. Petitioners are accused Nos.2 and 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that no incident has taken place, as alleged. Improbability of the allegation is writ large on the allegations themselves, it is submitted. The statement given by defacto complainant is highly artificial and it is difficult to believe that he would even remember the number of the stamp papers which are stated to have been used. The incident occurred on 4.10.2008 and the complaint was lodged only on 8.10.2008 after four days. No explanation is offered in the first information statement for the delay in lodging the complaint. It is B.A.No.7321 of 2008 2 submitted that complaint is filed as a defence for a case which may be filed against defacto complainant for dishonour of cheques and hence anticipatory bail may be granted, it is submitted. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application and pointed out that the delay is explained in the complaint. According to defacto complainant, he was hospitalized following this incident and he was also injured in the incident. Considering the nature of the allegations made, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. Recovery of the documents has to be effected and petitioners' interrogation is required. Therefore, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides, on the mere alleged improbability for the defacto complainant to remember the number of the stamp paper I am unable to accept, at this stage of investigation, that the case is improbable. In the nature of the allegations made and in the nature of the investigation required which includes recovery of alleged stolen articles, it may not be proper for me to grant anticipatory bail, since the bail would adversely affect the investigation. The incident occurred as early as on 4.10.2008 and petitioners are bound to surrender to law. They have not appeared either before police or before the court. 6. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that B.A.No.7321 of 2008 3 petitioners are prepared to surrender before Magistrate Court and a direction may be issued to him to surrender before Magistrate Court instead of the police. On hearing both sides, in a case of this nature, where the documents are allegedly procured by petitioners from defacto complainant, I am satisfied that the documents have to be recovered for which purpose interrogation of petitioners may be essential and hence, it may not be proper on my part to direct petitioners to surrender before the Court. Hence petitioners are directed to surrender before the investigating officer without any delay and co-operate with the investigation. Whether they surrender or not, police is at liberty to arrest them and proceed with in accordance with law. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vns