IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 18TH JANUARY 2010 / 28TH POUSHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 7641 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.904/2009 OF TOWN WEST POLICE STATION, THRISSUR PETITIONER : 2ND ACCUSED ------------------------------ ASHOK KUMAR, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.AMMINIYAMMA, NAAZHIYATH HOUSE, CHITTANJOOR DESOM, ANJOOR VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT SRI.M.L.SURESH KUMAR SRI.V.V.JOY SRI.P.ANOOP (MULAVANA) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/01/2010, ALONG WITH BA NO. 7666 OF 2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------ B.A.Nos.7641 & 7666 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of January, 2010 ORDER Bail Application No.7641 of 2009 is filed by accused No.2 and Bail Application No.7666 of 2009 is filed by accused No.1 in Crime No.904 of 2009 of Town West Police Station, Thrissur, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for anticipatory bail. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 464, 465, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The de facto complainant filed a complaint before the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thrissur which was forwarded to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On that basis, the crime was registered. 4. The gist of the prosecution case is the following: There were money transactions between the first accused and the de facto complainant. The first accused had lent money to the de facto complainant. At that time, the first accused had BA Nos.7641 & 7666/2009 2 obtained cheques and signed blank papers from the de facto complainant. Amounts payable to the first accused were paid by the de facto complainant. However, misusing the signed blank papers given by the de facto complainant, a promissory note was fabricated as if that promissory note was executed by the de facto complainant in favour of the second accused. O.S.No.1180 of 2009 was filed by the second accused before the Sub Court, Thrissur against the de facto complainant, for realisation of money. It is stated that accused No.2 is the driver employed by the first accused. 5. The suit instituted by the second accused is pending. Primarily, the question whether the promissory note is a fabricated document is to be decided by the civil court. 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 the arrest of the petitioners, the officer in charge of the police station shall release them on bail on their executing bond for Rs.15,000/- each with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following BA Nos.7641 & 7666/2009 3 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 Applications are allowed to the extent indicated above. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl