IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 28TH MAGHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 6822 of 2009() ------------------------------------------ CRIME NO.435/2009 OF NOORANADU POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DIST. ................. PETITIONER/4TH ACCUSED ------------------------------------------ UTHAMAN, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.PAULOSE, CHANKOOR VILAYIL, KANNANAKUZHI MURI, THAMARAKULAM VILLAGE. BY ADV. MR.V.ANIL. RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT -------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, (CRIME NO. 435 OF 2009 OF NOORANADU POLICE STATION). BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.M.S. BREEZ. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/02/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 6822 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 17th day of February, 2010 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.4 in Crime No.435/2009 of Nooranadu Police Station, Alappuzha. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 420, 170, 468, 471 and 473 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is the following: The petitioner applied for a consumption loan from the District Co-operative Bank, Alappuzha. He claimed that he was running a Medical Store and that he had a monthly income of Rs.8,000/- from the business in the Medical Store. He had also shown in the application that his agricultural income was Rs. 4,000/-. For the purpose of getting loan, two sureties were offered. They were accused Nos.1 and 2. Accused No.1 was described in the Loan Application as Muhammed Thaha Moulavi, Govt. Sidha Ayurvedic Dispensary, Thekkada, B.A. No. 6822/ 2009 2 Vembayam, Thiruvananthapuram and the second accused, another surety was described as Shihabuddin, Pharmacist, Govt. Sidha Ayurvedic Dispensary, Thekkada, Vembayam, Thiruvananthapuram. The salary certificates of the sureties were also produced along with the Loan Application. Later, on 16/7/2009, the petitioner and accused Nos. 1 and 2 appeared before the Bank Manager and put their signature in the required papers. The loan was sanctioned. On that day, the petitioner received a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the bank. 4. Later, accused Nos.1 and 2 stood as sureties in respect of another loan transaction in Vallikunnam branch of the Kerala Financial Corporation. The officers of the Kerala Financial Corporation had some doubt and they verified the claims made by the sureties that they are Govt. Servants. It was revealed that accused Nos.1 and 2 are not Govt. Servants. The officers of the Kerala Financial Corporation informed the police. Accused Nos.1 and 2 were arrested. 5. The investigation revealed that the Manager of the District Co-operative Bank, Alappuzha, had sought confirmation of B.A. No. 6822/ 2009 3 the genuineness of the salary certificates produced by accused Nos.1 and 2. The communication was sent by the Manager by registered post with acknowledgment due. The Bank had duly received the acknowledgment cards. Thereafter, the loan was sanctioned. 6. The prosecution alleges that the salary certificates and other documents as well as the seals were forged and made by accused No.3, Prasad. 7. After accused Nos.1 and 2 were arrested in Crime No. 281/2009 of Vallikunnam Police Station in respect of the offences committed in connection with the loan sought to be availed from the Kerala Financial Corporation, the petitioner repaid a sum of Rs.70,000/- on 3/9/2009 to the District Co-operative Bank, Alappuzha. 8. The F.I.R in the present case was registered on the basis of the information given by Vallikunnam Police Station. That information was supplied on the basis of the confession statement made by accused No.2 in Crime No. 281/2009 of Vallikunnam Police Station. Nooranadu Police registered Crime No.435/2009 B.A. No. 6822/ 2009 4 against Muhammed Thaha Moulavi, Shihabudin, Prasad and the petitioner for the offences mentioned above. The petitioner apprehends arrest and therefore, he has filed this application for anticipatory bail. 9. The petitioner is the beneficiary of the loan transaction. He applied for loan. He claimed in the Loan Application that he was running a business and that he was conducting a Medical Store. In fact, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not conducting any Medical Store. He is working as a conductor in K.S.R.T.C. It was found out that the sureties, namely, Muhammed Thaha Moulavi and Shihabudin, who were described as Govt. Servants, are not really Govt. Servants. That means, the salary certificates produced along with the Loan Application submitted by the petitioner are forged and fabricated documents. 10. Taking into account these facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined, prima facie, to accept the contention put forward by the petitioner that he was unaware of any of the incidents in the case. The facts narrated above, prima facie, B.A. No. 6822/ 2009 5 indicate the complicity of the petitioner in the offence. The petitioner is not entitled to any discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be necessary, taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm