IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2009 / 27TH SRAVANA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 4318 of 2009() --------------------------------------- CRIME NO.459/2009 KOTTAYAM EAST POLICE STATION. PETITIONER/ ACCUSED NO.2: ---------------------------------------- C.M.JOSEPH, AGED 62 YEARS, BIJU NIVAS, KUMARANELLUR. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) SRI.AJEESH K.SASI RESPONDENT/STATE/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. SRI. P. RAVEENDRA BABU, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 4318 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 18th day of August, 2009 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the second accused in Crime No.459/2009 of Kottayam East Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 465, 468 and 420 read with Section 120 B of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that the neighbouring property of the defacto complainant belongs to the first accused. The second accused is the father-in-law of accused No.1 and the third accused is the manager of accused No.1. The accused persons wanted to construct a multi-storied building about 60cm away from the building belonging to the defacto complainant. It is alleged that the accused persons conspired together and forged the signature of the defacto complainant in a consent letter, which was produced before B.A. No.4318 / 2009 Page numbers the Muncipality for the purpose of getting permission for such construction. The consent letter was attested by a Notary Public. The case of the defacto complainant is that the signature in the consent letter was not put by him and there was impersonation before the Notary Public. 4. The contention of the petitioner, who is the second accused, is that he was in the United States of America for the period from 20/6/2008 to 5/09/2008. Annexure (E) extract of the passport of the petitioner is produced in support of that contention. The consent letter is dated 19/08/2008. It is stated by the petitioner that at the time when the consent letter was allegedly signed, he was not available in India and he was in the United States of America. It is also pointed out that the construction could be made even without the consent letter. Annexure (H) communication issued by the Muncipality is relied on in support of that contention. 5. 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. B.A. No.4318 / 2009 Page numbers 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.25,000/- 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) 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