IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 20TH JULY 2010 / 29TH ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 4240 of 2010() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO.611/2010 OF PALA POLICE STATION) PETITIONERS ------------------------------- 1. VANAJAMOLE, W/O.JAMESKUTTY JOSEPH, CHERIYAPURETHU HOUSE, THIDANADU KARA, KONDOOR VILLAGE, KAPPADU P.O. 2. ROYCHAN MATHEW, S/O.MATHEW, CHERIYAPURETHU HOUSE, THIDANADU KARA, KONDOOR VILLAGE, KAPPADU P.O. BY ADV. SRI.P.C.HARIDAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE S.I. OF POLICE, PALA. 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J ----------------------- B.A No.4240 OF 2010 -------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of July 2010 ORDER This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 419, 420, 468 and 471 r/w 34 of IPC. According to prosecution, first accused who is the wife of de facto complainant along with her brother forged the power of attorney, in the name of her husband, and on the basis of this power of attorney, 39.30 ares of land was sold to a third person. They also committed impersonation and cheating. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that there are some inconsistencies in the complaint. According to petitioners, there was some difference of opinion between the petitioner and his wife since 2008, when the family property of first accused was disposed of. There was a demand for share from the said property. When first accused came to India, he took de facto complainant to a hotel on 02/04/2005, and harassed her and hence, she filed a complaint. It is only thereafter, that the present complaint is filed. The complaint is filed only as a counter blast to the complaint filed by first accused. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that as per the investigation, the date on which the power of attorney was purported to be executed by de facto B.A No.4240 OF 2010 2 complainant ie, on 05/04/2005, de facto complainant was not available in India as per the details in the passport. There is a clear case of forgery and petitioners are required for the purpose of custodial interrogation to ascertain the complicity of the persons involved in the forgery. It is also submitted that as per the allegations made by the de facto complainant, first accused used to dissuade him from selling the property and it was much later that he came to know about the forgery and cheating and he never thought that such cheating will be committed by his own wife. 5. On hearing both sides, considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I find that petitioner's custodial interrogation will be required for an effective investigation into the crime. This is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail taking into account the gravity of offence committed, and the need for custodial interrogation. Petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer without any delay and co-operate with investigation. 6. No further application for anticipatory bail by petitioner in this crime will be entertained by this court hereafter. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA JUDGE vdv