IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2008 / 15TH SRAVANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 4584 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.219/2008 OF MALA POLICE STATION PETITIONER : ACCUSED ----------------- 1. BINDHU 35, W/O.THOKKUDAM JOSE, KUZHOOR, KAKKULISSERY VILLAGE MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR 2. JOSE, 40, S/O.THOKKUDOM DEVASSY KUZHOOR, KAKKULISSERY VILLAGE MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK., THRISSUR BY ADV. SRI.VIVEK VARGHESE P.J. RESPONDENT: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY S.I. OF POLICE MALA . BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------------------------------- Bail Application No.4584 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of August, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 415, 417 and 420 read with Section 34 IPC. According to the prosecution, petitioners are husband and wife and they were residing in the property belonging to the defacto complainant. There was some understanding that the property will be transferred to the petitioners. But, petitioners allegedly forged and fabricated documents and effected a transfer of property in the name of the first petitioner, who is the wife of second petitioner. Petitioners apprehend arrest in a non-bailable offence and hence, this petition. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the defacto complainant and the second petitioner are friends and the property was actually transferred to the name of the first petitioner. But, there was some dispute later, since there is hike in the value of the property. Therefore, a complaint is falsely filed against the petitioners. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned public prosecutor BA No.4584/08 2 submitted that he has no objection in granting anticipatory bail to first petitioner. The document was actually forged at the instance of the second petitioner in the name of the first petitioner and the first petitioner is implicated only with the aid of Section 34 IPC. 5. On hearing both sides, on the facts and circumstances of the this case, I find that anticipatory bail can be granted to the first petitioner, but not to the second petitioner. Hence, the following order is passed: (i) Prayer for anticipatory bail by the second petitioner is rejected. (ii) The first petitioner shall be released on bail in the event of her arrest, if any, on her executing bond for Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer on condition that she will co-operate with the investigation and report before the Investigating Officer as and when directed. The petition is allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE BA No.4584/08 3 csl