IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7132 of 2008() ------------------------------------------ (CRIME NO.419/08 OF ALAPPUZHA NORTH POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT) PETITIONER:ACCUSED NO.1: --------------------------------------------- MURALIKRISHNAN, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.VARADARAJAN, PUSHPA VIHAR, KALARCODE WARD, ALAPPUZHA MUNICIPALITY, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ABDUL JALEEL.A RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALAPPUZHA NORTH POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K.HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.7132 of 2008 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th November, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 420, 406, 409, 419 and 34 IPC. According to prosecution, petitioner personated himself as his brother-in-law, who was working abroad, and produced document relating to the property belonging to his brother-in-law before the Bank and in furtherance of common intention, the Bank Manager advanced a loan of Rs.60 lakhs. The Bank Manager committed the offence in furtherance of common intention. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is absolutely innocent of the allegations made. There was some some difference of opinion between petitioner and his brother-in-law. Petitioner obtained loan from the Bank, using his own document, and it is not correct to say that the document of brother-in-law was used at any time. It is also submitted that petitioner is a chronic heart patient. Second accused was granted anticipatory bail and hence, he may be granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted. BA No. 7132/2008 2 4. This petition is opposed. Learned public prosecutor submitted that this is a clear case of cheating and personation. Petitioner has personated himself for the purpose of obtaining loan by producing document belonging to his brother-in-law and obtained huge amount of loan from the Bank and it is revealed on investigation that at the time when he obtained the loan, defacto complainant was not even present in India. He was working abroad. It is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail and petitioner is required for interrogation, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that in the nature of allegations made, this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. The physical state of petitioner or his age also does not persuade me to invoke provision under Section 438 Crl.P.C. though those may be relevant in a petition under Section 437 Crl.P.C. In the nature of allegations made, petitioner's interrogation will be required for the purpose of an effective investigation to ascertain that the materials which are within the exclusive knowledge of petitioner. Hence, petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer and co-operate with BA No. 7132/2008 3 investigation without any delay. Whether he surrenders or not, police is at liberty to arrest petitioner and proceed in accordance with law. The petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE csl