IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2009 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 2708 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.162 OF 2009 OF MANNAR POLICE STATION PETITIONERS :ACCUSED 1 TO 3 ------------------------------------------ 1. SATHEESAN,S/O.GOPI, KAPPOLIL,VISHAVARSERIKKARA MURI, KURATTISERRI VILLAGE. 2. MATHEW K.JOHN,KALARIKKAL THARAYIL, ERAMATHOOR MURI,THRIPPERUMTHARA VILLAGE. 3. JOHNSON,KARYADI THARAYIL, PRAYAR NORTH,P.O.OACHIRA. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) SRI.A.R.DILEEP RESPONDENT(S): STATE & COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANNAR POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ----------------------------------- B.A.No.2708 of 2009 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2009 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.162 of 2009 of Mannar Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 294(b), 506(i), 419, 420, 465 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The defacto complainant filed a complaint before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-Chengannur, which was forwarded to the police under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The crime was accordingly registered. The case of the defacto complainant is that she approached the second accused with a request to grant loan. Loan was granted. Document of title in respect of the property of the defacto complainant and a blank signed stamp paper were handed over to the second accused. It is stated that the accused persons came to the house of the defacto complainant and asked to vacate the house. On enquiry, the defacto complainant came to know that the property belonging to her was transferred as BA No.2708/2009 2 per a registered document. She did not execute such a document. It is her case that making impersonation, the document was registered. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that impersonation would be clear if the thump impression of the defacto complainant is compared with the thump impression of the executant of the document as available in the Sub Registrar's office. No such investigation was conducted. Prima facie, there is nothing to prove impersonation. If that aspect is not proved, according to the counsel, the rest of the allegations would predominantly be a dispute of a civil nature. 4. 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 the arrest of the petitioners, the officer in charge of the police station shall release them on bail for a period of one month on their executing bond for Rs.25,000/- each with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions: a) The petitioners shall report before the investigating officer between 9 A.M. and 11 A.M. on all Mondays, till the final report is filed or until further orders; b) The petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer for BA No.2708/2009 3 interrogation as and when required; c) The petitioners shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence; d) The petitioners shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail; e) On the expiry of the period mentioned above, the petitioners shall surrender before the Magistrate concerned and seek regular bail; f) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to be cancelled. It is made clear that the observations in paragraph 4 are made only for considering this Bail Application and it shall not be treated as an observation on the merits of the case. The Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated above. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl