IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2010 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 1209 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.909/2009 OF VALAPPAD POLICE STATION PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------- RAJAN, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.THACHUMPURATH SANKARU, PADINJARE VEMBALLOOR DESOM, SREENARAYANAPURAM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN SRI.SAIJO HASSAN RESPONDENT(S): STATE: --------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.1209 of 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of March, 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 the sole accused in Crime No.909 of 2009 of Valappad Police Station. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The father of the petitioner filed a complaint before the court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kodungallur which was forwarded to the police under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The crime was registered. Originally, there were three accused. After investigation, accused Nos.2 and 3, who are the officials of Kerala State Electricity Board, were deleted from the array of accused. The allegation against the petitioner is that he forged an authorisation letter and used the same as genuine, as if it was issued by the de facto complainant authorising the petitioner to receive the compensation on account of the value of nine coconut BA No.1209/2010 2 trees cut from the de facto complainant's property for drawing an electric line. The cheque was received by the petitioner from the Kerala State Electricity Board office in the year 2003. The complaint was filed by the de facto complainant in the year 2009. It is submitted that the petitioner had filed a suit for partition against his father and brother and that the suit was pending. It is submitted that the complaint was filed only to harass the petitioner. 4. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence and other circumstances, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the petitioner, the officer in charge of the police station shall release him on bail on his executing bond for Rs.15,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions: a) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; b) The petitioner shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the BA No.1209/2010 3 evidence; c) The petitioner shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail; d) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to be cancelled. The Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated above. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl