IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 22ND MAGHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 7359 of 2009 CRIME NO.119 OF 2009 OF VADAKKEKKAD POLICE STATION, THRISSUR PETITIONER: ACCUSED NO.2: --------------------------------- SABU, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.A.P.DEVASSI, AKKARA HOUSE, EAST FORT, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT: --------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING THE S.I. OF POLICE, VADAKKEKKAD POLICE STATION. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 7359 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 11th day of February, 2010 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.2 in Crime No.119 of 2009 of Vadakkekkad Police Station, Thrissur District. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The gist of the prosecution case is the following: The de facto complainant, Sachidanandan Nair, aged 61 years and who is blind, and his sister Parameswari Amma own an extent of 1.44 acres of land in Chavakkad. Parameswari Amma wanted to get a sum of Rs.3 lakhs for the purpose of her daughter's marriage. Sabu, the second accused, was acquainted with Parameswari Amma and Sachidanandan Nair. He used to visit the house of Parameswari Amma. Sabu stated that money could be arranged at reasonable rate of interest. The original title deed, the purchase certificate and B.A. NO. 7359 OF 2009 :: 2 :: other records in relation to the property were taken by Sabu for arranging a loan. Rs.50,000/- was given to Parameswari Amma. Later, she informed Sabu that her son had assured to provide funds for the marriage and, therefore, loan was not required. However, the original title deeds were not handed over back to Sachidanandan Nair or to Parameswari Amma. 4. Later, a notice was received by Parameswari Amma from the Union Bank of India, Alappuzha, under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. On enquiry, the de facto complainant came to know that Arjun Constructions at Alappuzha had taken loan from the Union Bank of India to the tune of Rs.50 lakhs and the property belonging to the de facto complainant and his sister was mortgaged for that purpose. According to the de facto complainant and his sister, they had never taken any loan from the Union Bank of India, Alappuzha and that they had never offered the property as security for any loan transaction. The prosecution case is that with the help of Sabu, signatures of the de facto complainant and his sister were forged and the property was made as a security for the loan granted by the Union Bank of India to Arjun B.A. NO. 7359 OF 2009 :: 3 :: Constructions. According to the prosecution, the then Bank Manager was also responsible for the fraud and cheating. One of the accused is the proprietor of Arjun Constructions. 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence and the allegations levelled against the petitioner, I do not think that this is a fit case where anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. 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 investigation of the case. More over, the petitioner is not entitled to any discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/