IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 10TH APRIL 2008 / 21ST CHAITHRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 2252 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.621/07 OF PERAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER : ACCUSED NO.2 ----------------------------- MAVIS DAVIS, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.DAVIS MALIYEKKAL HOUSE, KANIMANGALAM P.O., THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.C.C.THOMAS (SR.) SRI.NIREESH MATHEW RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PERAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT, RE. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ B.A.No.2252 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of April, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioner is the 2nd accused in a crime registered alleging offences punishable under Sections 420 and 468 I.P.C. The crime has been registered on the basis of a complaint filed by the defacto complainant and referred to the police by the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. 1st accused is the wife of the defacto complainant. The crux of the allegations is that the husband, who was employed abroad, had executed a general power of attorney dated 24.06.06 in favour of his wife, the 1st accused. The 1st accused, wife had allegedly executed a document conveying an item of property to the petitioner herein on the strength of such power of attorney. The petitioner had dealt with the 1st accused as the attorney of her husband, the defacto complainant. According to the defacto complainant, the 1st and 2nd accused had colluded to fraudulently deceive the defacto complainant. The document was executed on 07.02.07, the date on which the power of attorney was cancelled. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent. He has nothing to do with the disputes between the spouses. He had entered into a bona fide B.A.No.2252 of 2008 2 transaction with the 1st accused on the strength of the power of attorney executed by the defacto complainant in her favour. By no stretch of imagination can it be held that the petitioner had any contumacious or culpable intent when he entered into that bona fide transaction with the 1st accused. The petitioner is willing to abide by all conditions which may be imposed by the Court. He shall co-operate with the investigator. In any view of the matter, the petitioner may not be compelled to endure the trauma of arrest and incarceration, submits the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor does not oppose the application. I am satisfied, in the facts and circumstances of this case, that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. In the absence of opposition, it is not necessary for me to advert to facts in any greater detail in this order. 4. In the result, this Bail Application is, allowed. The following directions are issued under Section 438 Cr.P.C. i) The petitioner shall appear before the learned Magistrate at 11 a.m on 17.04.2008. He shall be enlarged on regular bail on his executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate; B.A.No.2252 of 2008 3 ii) The petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer between 10 a.m and 1 p.m on 18.04.2008 and 19.04.2008 and thereafter t between 10 a.m and 12 noon on all Mondays and Fridays for a period of one month. Subsequently the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer as and when directed by the Investigating Officer in writing to do so; iii) If the petitioner does not appear before the learned Magistrate as directed in clause (i), directions issued above shall thereafter stand revoked and the police shall be at liberty to arrest the petitioner and deal with him in accordance with law as if those directions were not issued at all; iv) If the petitioner were arrested prior to his surrender on 17.04.08 as directed in clause (1) above, he shall be released from custody on his executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) without any sureties undertaking to appear before the learned Magistrate on 17.04.08. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-