IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 6TH JULY 2010 / 15TH ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 2561 of 2010() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO.883/2009 OF KANNUR POLICE STATION) PETITIONER -------------------- RANJITH P,PATTIYATH HOUSE, MUNDATHIKODE P.O,WADAKKANCERY,THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.SOORAJ T.ELENJICKAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA THROUGH SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,KANNUR TOWN POLICE STATION,REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J ----------------------- B.A No.2561 OF 2010 -------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of July 2010 ORDER This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 415, 420 and 468 of IPC. According to prosecution, first accused who is a senior sales officer attached to SBI Life Insurance persuaded one Jayapalan to deposit some amount in life insurance and accordingly, he deposited Rs.2,00,000/-. Receipt was also issued for the deposit. But, later, he came to know that the amounts were not credited to his account, but, instead, those were credited to the account of some other persons. On investigation, it is revealed that petitioner is the person who had signed the receipts and forged the same. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner has no role in the offence. In Annexure A1 complaint, petitioner's name is not mentioned at all. Annexure A2 is an enquiry report submitted to the Regional Director in respect of the same matter and nothing is mentioned therein about petitioner's involvement in the transaction. Petitioner is absolutely innocent of the allegations made. He has not issued any receipt, as alleged by prosecution. Petitioner was directed by this court to appear before the Investigating Officer and accordingly he appeared. He was interrogated by police. B.A No.2561 OF 2010 2 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioner appeared before the Investigating Officer and his specimen signatures were obtained for comparison. At present, the against petitioner is that he signed the receipts and the expert opinion is not received. Learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that petitioner will not be arrested for a period of two months from today since sufficient materials are not available with police connecting petitioner with the alleged forgery. These submissions are recorded. The petitioner may be directed to appear before investigating officer on every Saturday, for a period of two months, it is submitted. 5. In the light of the submissions made by learned Public Prosecutor that petitioner will not be arrested for a period of two months for want of sufficient evidence against petitioner, I do not think there is any imminent apprehension of arrest of petitioner. Therefore, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail at this stage. However, in the interest of both sides, the following order is passed. (1) Petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer on every Saturday between 10 a.m and 1 p.m for a period of two months. B.A No.2561 OF 2010 3 (2) On the above condition, petitioner is allowed to move anticipatory bail application again in case, if there is imminent apprehension of arrest. Petition is disposed of accordingly. K.HEMA JUDGE vdv