IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR SUNDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2011 / 26TH POUSHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 234 of 2011() ---------------------------- (CRIME NO.792/2010 OF KALPETTA POLICE STATION IN WAYANAD DISTRICT) ---------- PETITIONER/6TH ACCUSED ------------------------------------------ A.JYOTHI, W/O.DINESH, VALIYAVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, BHOOTAKULAM, PARAVUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT/STATE ----------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALPETTA POLICE STATION, WAYANAD DISTRICT, NOW INVESTIGATION CONDUCTED BY SPECIAL INVESTIGATION TEAM HEADED BY DYSP. KALPETTA, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.C.K.SURESH THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVINGCOME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: VK V. RAMKUMAR, J. ---------------------------------------------- Bail Application No.234 of 2011 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of January, 2011 ORDER The petitioner, who is the 6th accused in Crime No.792 of 2010 of Kalpetta Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 465, 468, 471 & 120(B) read with Section 34 I.P.C., seeks her enlargement on bail. Petitioner was arrested on 06/12/2010. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and others forged advise memos allegedly issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission and after producing the same before the Collectorate, Wayanad secured employment in the Revenue Department. 3. Sri.C.K.Suresh, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. 4. It is true that the petitioner's applications for bail were dismissed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate as well as the Special Judge, Wayanad. What the facts reveal is that unlike the other accused persons the petitioner did not draw salary from the Government and added to that the petitioner who was in an advanced stage of pregenancy has delivered a child on Bail Appln.No.234/2011 -2- 19/7/2010. Considering these peculiar circumstances and invoking the proviso to Section 437(1) Cr.P.C., I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner as a special case. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on her executing a bond for `25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate concerned and subject to the following conditions:- 1. The petitioner shall report before the Dy.S.P., Kalpetta between 9 a.m. and 12 noon on the first and last Monday of every month until further orders. 2. The petitioner shall surrender her passport if any before executing the bail bond. In case the petitioner is not the holder of a passport, she shall file an affidavit to that effect before executing the bail bond. 3. The petitioner shall make herself available for interrogation as and when required by the police at any time till the filing of the final report. Bail Appln.No.234/2011 -3- 4. The petitioner shall not influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses nor shall she attempt to tamper with the evidence for the prosecution. 5. The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail. If the petitioner commits breach of any of the above conditions, the bail granted to her shall be liable to be cancelled. This application is allowed as above. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE skj