IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 16TH AUGUST 2011 / 25TH SRAVANA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 6351 of 2011() ------------------------- Crime No.231 of 2010 of Haripad Police Station. PETITIONER:ACCUSED -------------------- N.RAVEENDRAN,S/O.NARAYAN, AGED 69 YEARS, MANAPARAMBIL, KARUVATTA. BY ADV. SRI.RASHEED C.NOORANAD RESPONDENT: --------------- S.I OF POLICE,HARIPAD POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Bail Appln.No.6351 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of August, 2011 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.231 of 2010 of Haripad Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 419, 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is the following:- The de facto complainant's father-in-law, Nanu was an Ex-service man. The accused and Nanu were friends. They used to go to treasury together to get pension. Nanu died on 19/02/2001. The accused took the death certificate of Nanu and the pass book from the husband of the de facto complainant. The accused assured that he would report the matter to the bank from where the pension was issued and he would make arrangements to get the other legal benefits due to Nanu's family. It is alleged that a sum of Rs.200/- was paid to the de facto complainant's husband stating that it was the Bail Appln.No.6351/2011 : 2 : sum which Nanu was entitled to. The accused also stated that he had also submitted the necessary papers to the Bank stating that Nanu was dead. 4. Later the husband of the de facto complainant received a notice from State Bank of Travancore, Haripad stating that there was unauthorised withdrawl of the pension in the account of Nanu and that he was liable to repay a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-. Husband of the de facto complainant went to the bank and he came to know that inspite of the death of Nanu on 19/02/2001, pension was drawn in his account upto September, 2008. The allegation is that the accused impersonated Nanu as if he was alive and drew the amounts from the bank on account of the pension in the account of Nanu. It is alleged that the husband of the de facto complainant died as a result of the shocking information that he had to repay a huge amount to the bank. 5. The case put forward against the petitioner takes in the case of impersonation. Identification of the petitioner is required by the persons concerned in the bank. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is serious in Bail Appln.No.6351/2011 : 3 : nature. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to get the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The matter requires investigation. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be required in the case. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, it would adversely affect the proper and smooth investigation of the case. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE skj