IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 12TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 23RD MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 8006 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.6/2005 OF WADAKKANCHERY POLICE STATION) PETITIONER/6TH ACCUSED ------------------------------------------ V.A.JOSEPH, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.ANTONY, VADAKKEDATH CHIRAYIL HOUSE, THALIYAMKUNNU, POOMALA P.O. TALAPPILLY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.BABU CHERUKARA RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- 1. S.I.OF POLICE, VADAKKANCHERY POLICE STATION, TRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.M.KAMMAPPU. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/02/2009, ALONG WITH BA NO. 7997 OF 2008, BA NO. 8007 OF 2008, BA NO. 8009 OF 2008, BA NO. 189 OF 2009, & BA NO. 259 OF 2009 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------------- Bail Appl. Nos. 8006, 8007, 8009, 7997 of 2008 and 189 & 259 of 2009 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of February, 2009. ORDER Petitions for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 467, 468, 474, 475 and 120(B) of IPC. According to prosecution, A1 to A12 hatched a criminal conspiracy to forge 'pattayams' relating to certain Government lands and falsely created pattayams in respect of Government lands and thereby committed various offences. A1 created documents in conspiracy with other accused, who include Registrar, Sub-Registrar, Village man etc. On the strength of these forged pattayams, assignments were also effected. The assignor is also made an accused. The forgery was committed in the year 1994 to 1996. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that petitioners are absolutely innocent of the allegations made. The properties in respect of which pattayams are falsely created are in the possession of persons from 1994 onwards and they cannot be dispossessed. If at all, forgery is committed by some officials, the persons who are in possession of the property cannot be made liable. They have not done anything to make any gain. B.A.Nos.8006, 8006/08 etc.. 2 Learned counsel for accused nos.8 and 10 submitted that they are purchasers of property and if the assignees have committed forgery, they may not be liable for such forgery. They are innocent purchasers, it is submitted. 4. Learned counsel for A3 also submitted that 3rd accused is only a Village man and during the relevant period he was not even working in the village wherein the relevant properties are situated. He was working elsewhere and his name is unnecessarily dragged into the crime. Hence, they may be granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 5. This petition is strongly opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that an anonymous letter was received by the District Collector making allegations that pattayams were falsely created in respect of certain government lands. Therefore, an enquiry was conducted and the matter was sent to the Vigilance for a detailed enquiry and thereafter, it was found that there was forgery of pattayams, during the period 1994- 1996 with the connivance and active role of officials in the Revenue Department and the matter was reported to the Superintendent of Police and a crime was registered. 6. The manner in which forgery is committed, the persons who are actually involved in the forgery can be ascertained by interrogating the persons involved in the forgery, it is submitted. Petitioners are requried for interrogation and it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. It is pointed out that some assignees purchased the properties in 1996 itself, during the relevant period in which forgery was committed. As per the instructions, not only forgery was committed but even assignment deeds were also created, after B.A.Nos.8006, 8006/08 etc.. 3 creating forged documents. The officials who are involved in these cases have active role in the offence , whether they were working outside the jurisdiction or not. Therefore, anticipatory bail may not be granted, it is submitted. 7. On hearing both sides, considering the serious nature of the allegations made, I am satisfied that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioners' interrogation will be required for ascertaining the facts, which in their exclusive knowledge, and for effective investigation. The crime is registered as early as in 2005 and petitioners are bound to co- operate with the investigation without any delay. Hence, the following order is passed: 1) Petitioners shall surrender before the investigating officer without delay and co-operate with the investigation. Whether they surrender or not, the police is at liberty to arrest them and proceed in accordance with law. 2) No further application for anticipatory bail by the petitioners in this crime will be entertained by this Court. Petitions are dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Krs.