IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2010 / 16TH ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3503 of 2010() ---------------------------------------- CRIME NO.559/2010 OF VATAKARA POLICE , KOZHIKODE DIST. ......... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO. 1,3,5 ------------------------------------------------ 1. ABDULLA THURUTHEEMMAL, S/O. MOIDEEN, AGED 54 YEARS, KARUVANCHERI AMSOM, MEENATHOOR DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE. 2. K.M.KUNCHILBRAYI, S/O. MOIDU, AGED 59 YEARS, KOOLIMAKKOOL VEEDU, PALAYADAM AMSOM, PATHIYARAKARA DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK. 3. MAJEESH S/O. MANOHARAN, AGED 35 YEARS, KIDANJOTH, MUTHUVANA.P.O., MUTHUVANA AMSOM DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------ B.A. No. 3503 of 2010 ----------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of July, 2010 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 464, 465, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioners(accused nos. 1 to 3) in furtherance of their common intention forged a consent letter purported to be issued by the landlord in favour of third accused for obtaining VAT registration to conduct the business in the shop room belonging to de facto complainant. The shop room was rented out to accused nos. 1 and 2, who in turn, sublet to accused no.3, without consent. The landlord is the de facto complainant. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that there is a civil case pending between de facto complainant, first and second accused in this case for eviction of the shop room let out to them by the de facto complainant. While the case was pending it was sublet to third accused with the knowledge of de facto complainant. The business in the building was conducted by third B.A. No. 3503 / 2010 2 accused with the consent of the landlord from 2005 onwards and rent was also received by de facto complainant from the third accused. 4. But the de facto complainant filed a private complaint stating that the business is run without the knowledge of the de facto complainant and that a consent letter was forged by accused nos. 1 to 5 for obtaining licence in the name of third accused. The allegations are absolutely false. Petitioners appeared before the investigating officer as per the directions of this court and they were interrogated. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioners are questioned by the investigating officer and there is no objection in granting anticipatory bail on conditions. 6. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that petitioners can be granted anticipatory bail on the conditions. Hence, the following order is passed: 1. Petitioners shall, in the event of their arrest be released on bail on their executing bond for Rs. 25,000/- each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting B.A. No. 3503 / 2010 3 officer on the following conditions: i). Petitioners shall report before the investigating officer as and when directed and co-operate with the investigation. ii). Petitioners shall not influence or intimidate any witness or tamper with the evidence. 2). This order will be in force only for a period of 15 days from today and in the meantime, petitioners shall seek regular bail from the court concerned. This petition is allowed. K. HEMA, JUDGE ln