IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 14TH AUGUST 2008 / 23RD SRAVANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 5094 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRMP.2261/2008 of D.C. & SESSIONS COURT,KOLLAM CRIME NO. 304/2008 OF ANCHALUMMOOD POLICE STATION, KOLLAM PETITIONER: 1ST ACCUSED: ----------------------------- IQBAL.U., S/O.YUNUS KUNJU, PROPRIETOR, V.K.INDUSTRIES, INCHAVILA, INCHAVILA P.O., PERINAD, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.SHAJI RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT: ------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM (REPRESENTING THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ANCHALUMMOOD POLICE STATION). BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 5094 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 14th day of August, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act and 420 IPC. According to the prosecution, petitioner issued a cheque in favour of the defacto-complainant for discharge of a legally enforceable debt. But, in the said cheque, he forged his own signature. The cheque was dishonoured by the bank with an endorsement,“signature differs”. Thereafter, a complaint was lodged and a crime was registered under the above said sections. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is not disputing the signature in the cheque. There is no difference in his signatures in the cheque and the specimen signature in the bank. The cheque ought not to have been dishonoured by the bank on the ground of signature differs. But only because of such endorsement, the petitioner is now facing prosecution on a frivolous complaint. The petitioner has not forged his signature. BA 5094/08 -2- 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that offence is under section 468 and 471 are added during the course of investigation. 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner on conditions. Hence, the following orders are passed:- (1) Petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within seven days from today and make himself available for interrogation and co-operate with the investigation. (2) Thereafter, in the event of his arrest, if any, he shall be produced before the Magistrate court concerned, in accordance with law. (3) On production of the petitioner before the learned Magistrate, and if any bail application is filed, the petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs. 25,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate on the following conditions:- BA 5094/08 -3- i) The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Saturday between 10 a.m. and 1 p.m. until further orders. ii) The petitioner shall not intimidate or influence any witness or tamper with evidence or commit any offence while on bail and in case breach of this condition, bail is liable to be cancelled. The application is allowed as above. K. HEMA, JUDGE. mn.