IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2010 / 1ST MAGHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 7464 of 2009() ---------------------------------------- CRIME NO.466/2009 OF KOTTAYAM WEST POLICE STATION. ............. APPLICANT /IST ACCUSED ------------------------ RAJU.C.D, S/O.DIVAKARAN, CHIRACKAL HOUSE, ATTAPPALAM KARA, KUMILY, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.K.A.ABDUL SALAM MR.ANIL KUMAR M.SIVARAMAN RESPONDENT(S): STATE & COMPLAINANT ---------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTAYAM WEST POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.M.S.BREEZE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 7464 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 21st day of January, 2010 O R D E R When the Bail Application came up for hearing on 22/12/2009, the following order was passed: “ This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.466/2009 of Kottayam West Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 406, 420, 468, 471, 474 and 120 B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The petitioner and his wife, who is the second accused, had filed B.A. No.5644/2009 for anticipatory bail. That Bail Application was disposed of by the order dated 3/11/2009. For the sake of convenience, paragraphs 3 to 5 in the order dated 3/11/2009 are extracted below: “3. The gist of the prosecution case is the following: The first petitioner purchased a tempo traveller in 2006 with the financial assistance of Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd. It would B.A. No. 7464/2009 2 appear that a hire purchase agreement was executed between the first petitioner and the company. It would also appear that amounts were due to the financier. The allegation is that the petitioners forged documents to make it appear that the entire liability to Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd. was discharged. On the basis of those forged documents, the endorsement on the registration certificate showing the hire purchase transaction was got changed by the petitioners. Thereafter, it is alleged that they hypothecated the vehicle to another financier and got money. The second petitioner is the wife of the first petitioner. She is a guarantor to the transactions. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that litigations are pending between the first petitioner and the Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd.. 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the offence, I do not think that the first petitioner is entitled to get the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The allegations levelled B.A. No. 7464/2009 3 against him are grave in nature. However, taking into account the fact the second petitioner is a woman and that she is only a guarantor and not the owner of the vehicle, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the second petitioner.” 4. The present Bail Application is filed by the first accused for anticipatory bail. Normally a second application for the same relief will not be entertained unless there is some change of circumstances or other grounds exist which would justify the consideration of the second application. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a copy of Form 35 submitted under Rule 61(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act to the registering authority was supplied to the petitioner, on the application filed by him under the Right to Information Act. It is submitted that the office endorsement therein would show that the cancellation of the entry of the hire purchase agreement in the records of the registering authority was duly intimated to Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. on 25/8/2007. The petitioner has produced a copy of that document before me today and it is taken on record. 6. I have perused the CD file. The CD file does not show that the investigating officer has B.A. No. 7464/2009 4 collected the relevant documents from the registering authority. 7. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that if the petitioner had paid the amount due to Shriram Transport Financiers, he would be having the document to prove the same. The petitioner has not produced any such document along with the Bail Application or in the arbitration proceedings pending between the parties. 8. It is clear that there is a civil dispute between the parties. According to the petitioner, he has discharged the entire liability. The petitioner had stated in the arbitration proceeding that the hire purchase agreement was torn off by the financier. According to the petitioner, what was produced by the financier was a forged agreement. It is submitted that the petitioner has filed an application to send the agreement for comparison of signature and handwriting by an expert. 9. In the facts and circumstances mentioned above, in spite of the fact that the Bail Application of the petitioner was dismissed on an earlier occasion, I am of the view that indulgence is required at present. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the petitioner to appear before the investigating officer at 9 A.M. on 29th and 30th December, 2009. B.A. No. 7464/2009 5 Post on 06/01/2010. 10. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner will not be arrested until further orders in connection with Crime No.466 of 2009 of Kottayam West Police Station. The petitioner shall produce copy of this order before the investigating officer.” 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner has complied with the direction contained in the order dated 22/12/2009. 3. 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 petitioner. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the petitioner, the officer in charge of the police station shall release him on bail on his executing bond for Rs.15,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions: A) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; B.A. No. 7464/2009 6 B) The petitioner shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence. C) The petitioner 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 Application is allowed to the extent indicated above. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm