IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2008 / 10TH ASHADHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 4051 of 2008() ----------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.13857/2004 Dated 09/11/2004 CRIME NO.392/08 OF KASARAGODE POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED ----------------------------------- RAMAKRISHNAN, S/O.VERAMPADY, CHERLADK HOUSE, NEKRAJE, KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SRI.SOJAN MICHEAL RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No.4051 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st July, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 468, 472 and 420 of Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, a crime is registered against the petitioner on the basis of a complaint preferred by the Tahsildar that the petitioner has forged a patta in his name by forging his signature and seal of the authorities concerned. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the patta has been issued to him in 1996 by the authorities concerned. But, later patta was issued in respect of some property in favour of another person also. A civil dispute arose between him and that other person and a suit was filed wherein the Deputy Tahsildar was a party proceedings and he had filed a written statement as early as in 2004 alleging that no such patta was issued to petitioner and that the records in the Village Office do not reveal that any patta was issued to the petitioner. But the complaint is filed only in 2008, after expiry of four years. Learned counsel for petitioner also BA.4051/08 2 pointed out that after issuing patta in favour of the petitioner, another patta was wrongly issued to another person and to wriggle out the responsibility of issuing two pattas for the same property, the present allegations are made against the petitioner. A writ has been filed by the petitioner before this Court and this Court has observed that there is only a civil dispute. It is also pointed out that the petitioner was paying tax from 1996 onwards till the dispute arose in 2004. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that as per instruction of the Revenue authorities, only the certified copy of the document which is purported to have been issued from the Tahsildar's office has been produced by the petitioner in the suit. On verification, the authorities found that no such document was issued from the Tahsildar's office, since as per the records maintained there, no patta was issued to the petitioner during the relevant time. The petitioner's custodial interrogation is therefore essential for revealing the manner in which he committed the offence and hence this petition is opposed. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that the present allegations cannot be said to constitute only a pure civil dispute BA.4051/08 3 between two persons. But there is a specific allegation of forgery etc. It is clear that the petitioner's interrogation is necessary for revealing the intricacies and manner in which the offence is committed. Hence, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail. This petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.