IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 6TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 15TH BHADRA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 6812 of 2011() ----------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16/08/2011 IN ORDER IN CRMP.2502/2011 of DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD CRIME NO.86/2011 OF SHOLAYUR POLICE STATION PALAKKAD DISTRICT. .................... APPLICANT/ACCUSED NO.3 : -------------------------- UNNIKRISHNAN, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.SUBRAMANIAN, PUTHENKATTIL HOUSE, METHALA VILLAGE, KODUNGALOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN RESPONDENT : COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING THE S.I.OF POLICE, SHOLAYUR POLICE STATION. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.MANU THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Bail Appln.No.6812 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 06th day of September, 2011 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.3 in Crime No.86 of 2011 of Sholayur Police Station, Palakkad District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 409 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. When the Bail Application came up for admission on 29/08/2011, the following order was passed: “3. The prosecution case is the following:- In 2008, an extent of 16.57 acres of land belonging to accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 were sold to the de facto complainant and his wife. Accused No.3 (petitioner) was the power of attorney holder of accused No.4. He is also the husband of accused No.2. Accused Nos.2 and 4 are the children of accused No.1. Accused No.3 obtained a No Objection Certificate from the Divisional Forest Officer (accused No.5) showing that the land in question is not a forest land. Accused No.6 is the Bail Appln.No.6812/2011 : 2 : Village Officer who issued the necessary certificate. Later the Forest Officials placed the jenda taking in the property in question also as the forest land. At that juncture the de facto complainant and his wife filed Writ Petition before the High Court in which the directions were issued to measure out the property. After measuring the property, it was found that an extent of 10 acres is forest land. It is alleged that the Divisional Forest Officer demanded Rupees Ten lakhs for issuing the certificate. The amount was to be paid subsequently. It is alleged that since amount was not paid, the Divisional Forest Officer put the jendas. 4. Accused Nos.1 to 4 applied for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court, Palakkad. Anticipatory Bail was granted to accused Nos.1, 2 and 4. However, the learned Sessions Judge rejected the prayer for anticipatory bail made by the petitioner (accused No.3). Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court for the grant of anticipatory bail. 5. It is submitted that accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 purchased the property as per registered assignment deed of the year 1991, 1995 and 1996 and the transaction was a bonafide transaction. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was nothing wrong in getting a certificate from the Divisional Forest Officer. The mere fact Bail Appln.No.6812/2011 : 3 : that the jenda was put by the Divisional Forest Officer, it cannot be said that an offence was committed by the accused, submits the learned Counsel. 6. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the offences, I am of the view that before considering the question of granting anticipatory bail, the petitioner should be directed to appear before the investigating officer. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the petitioner to appear before the investigating officer on 03/09/2011 and 04/09/2011. 7. Post on 06/09/2011. 8. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner will not be arrested in connection with Crime No.86 of 2011 of Sholayur Police Station, till 08/09/2011. 9. The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigating officer in the matter of investigation and for recovery of incriminating materials, if any.” 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor that the direction in the order dated 29/08/2011 has been complied with by the petitioner. 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offences and also taking note of the Bail Appln.No.6812/2011 : 4 : fact that the direction in the order dated 29/08/2011 has been complied with by the petitioner, 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 `10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions: a) The petitioner shall report before the investigating officer between 9 A.M. and 11 A.M. on all alternate Mondays, till the final report is filed or until further orders; b) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; c) The petitioner shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence. d) The petitioner shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail. Bail Appln.No.6812/2011 : 5 : e) 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 skj True copy P.A. to Judge