IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2010 / 10TH ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 2144 of 2010() -------------------------------------- CMP.2121/2010 of J.M.F.C.-II, KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------- PRASANNA KUMARI, D/O.LAKSHMIKUTTY, AGED 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT KATTUNGASSERIYIL, KOLLAM EAST VILLAGE, ASRAMAM P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.J.R.PREM NAVAZ SMT.SARITHA DAVID CHUNKATH RESPONDENT(S): STATE AND COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/07/2010, THE COURT ON 01/07/2010 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J ---------------------- B.A.No.2144 OF 2010 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of July, 2010 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 420 and 468 IPC. According to prosecution, defacto complainant borrowed an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- from the petitioner and she also returned Rs.3,00,000/- to the defacto complainant. Later when defacto complainant offered to pay Rs.50,000/-, petitioner told the defacto complainant to pay the amount to the second accused from whom the amount was taken. Petitioner also asked the defacto complainant to give all the documents relating to the transaction to the second accused. Accordingly all documents were procured and handed over to second accused. But defacto complainant forged her own signature and handed over a receipt while paying Rs.3,00,000/- with dishonest intentions. Thereafter a false complaint was filed against defacto complainant alleging that she owes Rs.4,00,000/- to the petitioner etc. 3. Petitioner is the first accused. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is a post office agent and, B.A. No.2144/10 2 defacto complainant had borrowed an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- from her. But the amount was not returned. A promissory note was also executed by her in respect of the transaction. Since the money was not returned a lawyer notice was issued to defacto complainant on 18.2.2010, demanding repayment of the money. No reply was sent by the defacto complainant. Therefore, a suit was filed for realisation of money. 4. Much thereafter on 28.3.2010, the present complaint is filed by defacto complainant making false allegations against petitioner and another that Rs.3 lakhs were returned and that petitioner forged her own signature while issuing receipt etc. No receipt was issued by defacto complainant and no amount was paid by defacto complainant. The promissory note issued by her was produced in court. This petition is filed only to evade repayment of money, it is submitted. 5. Learned public prosecutor submitted that since forgery is alleged, petitioner's interrogation will be required. The forged receipt is produced before the police and petitioner is to be questioned in respect of the said document. 6. On hearing both sides, on considering the circumstances under which a private complaint was filed by defacto complainant B.A. No.2144/10 3 and various other facts and circumstances, I am satisfied that anticipatory bail can be granted to petitioner. However, it is necessary that petitioner is made available for interrogation by police to ascertain the details in respect of the document which is allegedly forged by petitioner. Hence the following order is passed: 1) Petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer within seven days from today and co-operate with the investigation. 2) On such surrender, if petitioner is arrested, she shall be released on bail on her executing bond for Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer on the following conditions: i) Petitioners shall report before the investigating officer as and when directed and co-operate with investigation. ii) Petitioners shall not influence or intimidate any witnesses or tamper with evidence. This petition is allowed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Sou.