IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 26TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 4TH ASWINA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 6687 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.185/2011 OF CHERPLASSERY POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD PETITIONERS : ACCUSED 1 & 2 ------------------------------------- 1. ABOOBECKER KOYA, S/O.SRAJU HAJI,AGED 73 YEARS, KALATHUMPADIKKAL,CHALAVARA POST, CHERPLASSERY,OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. MUHAMMED IRSHAD, S/O.ABDUL GAFOOR,AGED 19 YEARS, KALATHUMPADIKKAL,CHALAVARA POST, CHERPLASSERY,OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHERPLASSERY POLICE STATION,PALAKKAD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM PIN 682 017. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A.No.6687 of 2011 --------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of September, 2011 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.185 of 2011 of Cherplassery Police Station, Palakkad District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that the accused persons forged the signature of the de facto complainant in the vakalath and other papers and filed O.S.No.17 of 2011 on the file of the Sub Court, Ottappalam for partition. 4. It is stated that the de facto complainant and the first petitioner are brothers. They had another brother, namely, BA 6687/2011 2 Hamsa. Hamsa died. O.S.No.17 of 2011 was filed by the de facto complainant and the first petitioner. According to the de facto complainant, he did not file any suit and his signature was forged by the accused persons. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in O.S.No.17 of 2011, an interim injunction was granted. The injunction order was violated by the defendants. An application was filed for taking action against the defendants for violation of injunction. Subsequently, the matter was settled between the de facto complainant and the defendants in the suit and therefore, the present petition was filed before the police making false allegations. 6. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence and other circumstances, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners. There will be a direction that in the event of arrest of the petitioners, the officer in charge of the police station shall release them on bail on their executing bond for ` 10,000/- each BA 6687/2011 3 with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions: A) The petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; B) The petitioners shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence ; C) The petitioners shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail; D) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to be cancelled. The Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated above. K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE csl