IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 24TH BHADRA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 3868 of 2009() ------------------------------------------- CRIME NO.89/2009 OF THUMBA POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------ VIMAL CHANDRAN, RESIDING AT ANIL BHAVAN, AMBALATHINKARA, THEKKUMBHAGAM, KAZHAKKUTTOM, NOW RESIDING AT M.G.PRIYA BHAVAN, SASTHANKONAM, NEAR DURGA LANE, SREEKARIYAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN SRI.SAIJO HASSAN RESPONDENT/ STATE: -------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. SRI. M.S.BREEZ, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No.3868 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 15th day of September, 2009 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.1 in Crime No.89/2009 of Thumba Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 181, 182, 416, 418, 419, 420, 423, 465,468 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The defacto complainant had filed a complaint before the Court of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II, Thiruvananthapuram, which was forwarded to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, the crime was registered. 4. After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, the following facts are revealed: The property in question belonged to Sarojini, the mother of the first accused and wife of the second accused. Sarojini died in 1997. She had transferred an extent of 5 cents of land to her daughter Omana. Omana is the sister of the first accused and B.A. No.3868 /2009 2 daughter of the second accused. In 2005, about eight years after the death of Sarojini, a document was executed as if it was executed by Sarojini. According to the prosecution, this was done by the accused by making impersonation of Sarojini. The document was executed in favour of the second accused. Later, the second accused transferred the property in favour of the first accused. In 2006, the first accused sold the property to the defacto complainant and the allegation is that thereby the accused persons cheated the defacto complainant. It would appear that the legal heirs of Omana has put forward certain claims in respect of the property. 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that this is a fit case where anticipatory bail can be granted in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm