IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 29TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 7756 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.411 OF 2010 OF NADAKKAVU POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE PETITIONER/ACCUSED : -------------------------- P.C.IBRAHIM MASTER, S/O.ALIKOYA HAJI, AGED 74 YEARS, PUTHUKUNNUMCHALIL HOUSE, THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR SRI.SHYAM PADMAN RESPONDENT(S): STATE --------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NADAKKAVU POLICE STATION - THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.K.RAJEEV THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A.No.7756 of 2011 --------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of November, 2011 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.411 of 2010 of Nadakkavu Police Station, Kozhikode District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. When the Bail Application came up for admission on 17.11.2011, the following order was passed : “3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted the following : An extent of 1 Acre of land was assigned on registry to one Ramunni, who belonged to a Schedule Caste. There was a stipulation in the patta that the property should not be alienated for a period of three years. Without realising about BA 7756/11 2 the restriction, the petitioner entered into an agreement for sale with Ramunni in respect of the property. Ramunni was very old. He executed a power of attorney and also a Will in favour of the petitioner on 5.9.2005. Ramunni died on 4.12.2005. After his death, his legal representatives also executed power of attorney and sale agreements in favour of the petitioner. However, a petition was filed by the eldest son of Ramunni to the Vigilance Department alleging some irregularities in the Vengeri Village Office. The vigilance conducted an enquiry. In the course of the enquiry, they also got photocopy of an agreement entered into between Ramunni and the petitioner. It is alleged that the agreement bears a date anterior to the date of the issue of the stamp paper. It is submitted that in the vigilance enquiry, it was concluded by the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, North Range as follows : “I have scrutinised the surprise check report and felt that there was failure on the part of Smt. Roshini Narayanan, the then Village Officer, Vengeri in maintaining the Basic Tax Register with proper entries. Similarly BA 7756/11 3 Smt.P.Sheela while working as Village Officer, Vengeri during the year 2007 had failed to issue sketch plan to the petitioner in time. Therefore, as recommended by the Checking Officer, I also recommend for departmental action against the suspect officers. But I am of the view that the Ext.B3 document mentioned in the Surprise Check report is a sale agreement purported to be executed between one Ramunni and one Ibrahim with vested interest. If at all there is any dispute over genuineness of the same it is an issue in civil nature which did not have any vigilance angle. Therefore, I disagree with the recommendation of the checking officer to register a case under Sections 468 and 471 IPC against one Ibrahim who was the second party in the agreement executed since there is no complaint as above to the legal heirs of the deceased or anybody else.” 4. However, the Directorate of Vigilance forwarded the matter to the police for registering a crime against the petitioner. Accordingly, the BA 7756/11 4 crime was registered. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that none of the legal representatives of Ramunni has any grievance against the petitioner. No original document was found out to show that a forgery was committed or a forged document was used as genuine document. It is submitted that the petitioner is a retired teacher, aged 74 years. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 6. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the offence, 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 23rd and 24th November, 2011. 7. Post on 29.11.2011. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner will not be arrested in connection with Crime No.411 of 2010 of Nadakkavu Police Station, till 1.12.2011. 8. The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigating officer in the matter of investigation and for recovery of incriminating BA 7756/11 5 materials, if any. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this order before the investigating officer. ” 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 17.11.2011 has been complied with by the petitioner. 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence and also taking note of the fact that the direction in the order dated 17.11.2011 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 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 : BA 7756/11 6 A) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required ; B) The petitioner shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence; C) The petitioner shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail; D) 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 csl