IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2010 / 18TH JYAISTHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3387 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.210/2010 OF NEDUPUZHA POLICE STATION, THRISSUR. (S): PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED ------------------------------------------ SUBHEESH KUMAR, S/O.KUNJUNNY, KONNAKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE,VENGINISSERY,PARALAM, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.M.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN SRI.K.S.RAJESH RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM , REPRESENTING THE S.I. OF POLICE, NEDUPUZHA POLICE STATION. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEK CHAND. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ---------------------------------------------- Bail Application No.3387 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 8th June, 2010. O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 120B, 420 and 468 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioner, who is second accused, hatched a criminal conspiracy with first accused and forged certain documents to make it appear that defacto complainant received an amount of Rs.4 lakhs from them and suits were filed against defacto complainant for realization of the amount, on the strength of forged promissory notes. As per the allegations made by defacto complainant, two promissory notes were created by accused and both of them filed separate suits against defacto complainant for realization of money. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is absolutely innocent of the allegations made. The defacto complainant borrowed an amount of Rs.5 lakhs from second accused and a promissory note was also executed in favour of second accused. Since the amount was not re-paid, BA NO.3387/10 2 second accused issued a lawyer notice on 12.2.2008, but no reply was sent. Thereafter, O.S.No.218/08 was filed before the Sub Court, Thrissur. On 15.2.2008, when the suit was posted for evidence, defacto complainant filed a criminal complaint against petitioners making false allegations. According to learned counsel for petitioner, the complaint is highly belated and it is only a counter blast to the claim made by petitioner. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that according to defacto complainant, she had taken only Rs.1.5 lakhs from the accused, for which she was asked to give some signed blank papers, which were converted by accused to promissory notes to file suits. She has not availed of any amount from accused on the strength of any promissory note, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides and on considering the delay in filing the complaint, the stage at which complaint is lodged, absence of sending any reply to the lawyer notice etc., I am satisfied that petitioner can be granted anticipatory bail. Hence, the following order is passed : Petitioner shall surrender before the Magistrate Court BA NO.3387/10 3 concerned within seven days from today and he shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of learned Magistrate, on the following conditions : (i) Petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer as and when directed and co-operate with the investigation. (ii) Petitioner shall not influence or intimidate any witness or tamper with evidence. Petition is allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. tgs