IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2008 / 4TH ASHADHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 3963 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO. 590/2008 OF KUNNAMKULAM POLICE STATION PETITIONERS: ACCUSED NOS.2 TO 5 ----------------------------------- 1. RAMACHANDRAN, S/O.ERATH KUMARAN, KUNNAMKULAM VILLAGE AND DESOM 2. JOHNSON, ARAKKAL ANTONY, ERANELLOOR. 3. MOHANAN, S/O.NADANCHERY PUSHKARAN ARTHARE. 4. BABY, S/O.JACOB, ARANGASSERI HOUSE PO.ERANELLOOR, MAZHUVANCHERY, THRISSUR BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI K.S. SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 3963 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 25th day of June, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 420, 463, 465, 470, 471 and 34 IPC. According to the prosecution, the 4th petitioner who is the son of the defacto-complainant wanted to resist the sale of the property by his mother. Therefore, he forged an agreement in the name of his mother purporting to be executed in favour of the 1st accused. The attestors in the agreement are petitioners 2 and 3. On the strength of the agreement, the 1st accused also filed a suit against the defacto-complainant demanding return of money which was allegedly given by him in favour of the defacto- complainant pursuant to the agreement. 3, But, according to the defacto-complainant, no such transaction had taken place. Originally, the 1st petitioner was shown as the person who had written the agreement as a document writer. Later, on investigation, it was revealed that he is not involved, but it was the 4th petitioner who is non other than the son of the defacto-complainant who forged the document. Therefore, the 1st petitioner, it is submitted, has been deleted from the array of the accused, it is submitted by the the learned Public Prosecutor. This submission is recorded. BA 3963/08 -2- 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the defacto- complainant actually wanted to sell the property and execute an agreement in favour of the 1st accused. Part payment was also effected, but, defacto- complainant demanded more money and refused to act in accordance with terms of the agreement. In such circumstances, the 1st petitioner was forced to file a suit before the civil court for getting an injunction and also for return of money. Summons was issued to the defendant who is the defacto- complainant herein. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, instead of filing written statement, she has filed a private complaint before the Magistrate Court, which was forwarded to the police under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. In such circumstances a crime is registered against petitioners 1 to 3. The 4th accused is subsequently brought into the array of the accused. 5. On hearing both sides I find that the matter is before the civil court. The accused-petitioners may be required for interrogation. Nothing is to be recovered. 6. Hence, the following order is passed:- 1. The request for anticipatory bail by the 1st petitioner is rejected, since he is not an accused in the case at present. 2. Petitioners 2 to 4 are directed to appear before the Investigating Officer within seven days from BA 3963/08 -3- today and make themselves available for interrogation. 3. Thereafter, in the event of their arrest, they shall be produced before the learned Magistrate concerned in accordance with law. 4.On production of petitioners 2 to 4 before the Magistrate and in the event of their filing bail application, if any, petitioners 2 to 4 shall be released on bail on their executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- each with solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate on the following conditions:- i) They shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Monday and Thursday between 9 a.m. and 1 p.m. until further orders ii) They shall co-operate with the investigation. The application is disposed of as above. K. HEMA, JUDGE. mn.