IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2010 / 3RD ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 2970 of 2010() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO.228/2010 OF GURUVAYOOR POLICE STATION, THRISSUR) PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- SANDEEP.K.S., AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.SOMAN, KAKKANATTU (H), P.O.AVANUR, VARADIYAM, TRICHUR TALUK, PERAMANGALAM.P.O. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.ANILKUMAR SMT.P.D.SHEEJA RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, GURUVAYUR POLICE STATION, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J ----------------------- B.A No.2970 OF 2010 -------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of June 2010 ORDER This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 406, 420, 468 r/w 34 of IPC. According to prosecution, accused numbers 1 to 3, in furtherance of common intention committed cheating and forgery in respect of documents relating to a car belonging to de facto complainant. The car of de facto complainant used to be taken by one Raveendran. He had given it to one Suneesh on rent. Thereafter, it was given to petitioner who is the first accused in this case on receiving Rs.7,000/- as advance rent. Thereafter, petitioner and second accused forged the documents relating to the car and sold it to Shaji from whom the car was seized. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner's name is not mentioned in FIR. Different versions are put forward by prosecution as per remand report and FIS. In the FIS, it is stated that Raveendran has taken the car from de facto complainant. But, as per remand report, first accused who was close to de facto complainant had taken away the car for one week's use etc. It is also submitted that the car was seized from one Shaji. First accused is arrested and released on bail. Shaji B.A No.2970 OF 2010 2 and Raveendran are not accused in this case. Petitioner hired the vehicle from first accused for the purpose of his marriage and he is innocent of the allegations made, it is submitted. 4. This petition is strongly opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that as per FIS, the car was taken by one Raveendran from de facto complainant, but, on enquiry, de facto complainant came to know that first accused had taken the car and pledged the car etc. A request was made as per FIS to take necessary action to seize the vehicle and give it to him. It is also submitted that on investigation, it was revealed that the car was given to one Suneesh by Raveendran who had taken the car from de facto complainant. But, Suneesh had given it to petitioner who is the first accused after taking an advance amount of Rs.7,000/- towards rent and thereafter, he along with second accused forged the documents and sold it to Shaji. It was only when the car was seized from Shaji that petitioner's involvement was revealed. Petitioner's interrogation is absolutely necessary for an effective investigation in this case. This is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submtited. 5. On hearing both sides and going through the Case Diary, I am satisfied that petitioner's involvement is revealed from the allegations made in Case Diary. Petitioner allegedly forged B.A No.2970 OF 2010 3 certain documents along with second accused and sold the car to one Shaji. Petitioner's interrogation will be required for ascertaining the details in respect of alleged forgery and for an effective investigation. This is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. 6. Petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer and co-operate with investigation without any delay. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA JUDGE vdv