IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2008 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 1328 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.725/06 OF VENJARAMOODU POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED ----------------------------------- FATHIMA, AGED 31 YEARS, D/O.FATHIMUTHU, AYITHYTHADATHARIKATHU VEEDU, PARAMTHODE P.O., ARYANAD, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.K.SATHEESH KUMAR RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- B.A. No. 1328 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of March, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner is the 3rd accused in a crime registered alleging commission of offences punishable, inter alia, under Secs.420, 465 and 468 of the IPC. The crux of the allegations is that the de facto complainant – a Muslim woman, had handed over the originals of her title deeds to the 1st accused. The 1st accused had returned the original title deeds to her. But she realised that a document has been executed in her name assigning the property to the 2nd accused. The 2nd accused is the father of the 1st accused. According to the de facto complainant, she had never executed any such document in favour of the 2nd accused. It was revealed that it was the 1st accused who got such a document executed in favour of the 2nd accused making use of the B.A. No. 1328 of 2008 -: 2 :- services of the A3 and A4. The petitioner/A3 is alleged to be the person who had impersonated herself to be the de facto complainant and executed the document in favour of the 2nd accused. A crime has been registered. Investigation is in progress. Initially, there was only accused 1 and 2 arrayed as accused. Now the petitioner as well as another have been arrayed as A3 and A4. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the petitioner may now be granted anticipatory bail. She does not deserve to endure the trauma of arrest and detention. The petitioner has been questioned by the police already. It is not necessary to insist on her arrest and detention now, at any rate, submits the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor points out that all the available indications clinchingly point to the complicity of the petitioner in a serious crime like this. The petitioner may be directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate and seen regular bail. There is no necessity to invoke the discretion under Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C., submits the learned Public Prosecutor. B.A. No. 1328 of 2008 -: 3 :- 4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. I agree that the petitioner must surrender before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the ordinary course. 5. In the result, this bail application is dismissed; but with the observation that if the petitioner surrenders before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate and seeks bail, after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate must proceed to pass appropriate orders on merits and expeditiously. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge