IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 22ND MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7959 of 2008() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO.151/08 OF CHELAKKARA POLICE STATION) PETITIONER ------------------------------ 1. AYYAPPAN EZHUTHACHAN S/O. RAMAN, PANDIYOTTIL HOUSE, NATTINCHIRA, VANGANELLUR, THRISSUR. 2. RUGMANI, W/O. AYYAPPAN EZHUTHACHAN, PANDIYOOTTIL HOUSE, NATTINCHIRA, VENGUNELLUR, TRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S. SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------------- Bail Appl. No. 7959 of 2008 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of February, 2009. ORDER Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 120(B), 416, 417, 419, 420, 423, 463, 464, 467, 468, 471, 474 r/w 34 of IPC. According to prosecution, petitioners, who are father-in-law and mother-in-law of de facto complainant created a forged Power of Attorney purportedly executed by de facto complainant and her husband and transferred the property which stands in their joint name to the name of 2nd petitioner, who is the mother- in-law and then in favour of de facto complainant' s son. The signature of husband as well as de facto complainant are forged in that Power of Attorney and hence, the complaint. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that de facto complainant had married petitioners' son in the year 1987. 59 cents of land stood in the name of de facto complainant and her husband. In the year 1995, a power of attorney was executed by them in favour of first petitioner's father-in-law for sale of property. In the year 1997, on the strength of power attorney, the property was sold in the name of mother-in-law first and then to the child. The child was kept in the custody of petitioners by the father, since he had some difference of opinion with de facto complainant. Petitioners were looking after the child but now de facto complainant had taken away the child. The execution of the deed was in the year 1997 and petitioners' son (de facto complainant's husband) is no more. [B.A.No.7959/08] 2 After 11 years, in 2008, a false complaint was filed to harass petitioners, it is submitted. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioners may be required for interrogation and subject to that he has no objection in granting anticipatory bail, since the property is in the name of de facto complainant. 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that anticipatory bail can be granted to petitioners. Hence, the following order is passed: Petitioners shall surrender before the Magistrate Court concerned within 7 days from today and they shall be released on bail on their executing bond for Rs.25,000/- each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of learned Magistrate, on the following conditions: i) Petitioners shall report before the investigating officer within four days from the date of release on bail and co-operate with the interrogation. ii) Petitioners shall report before the investigating officer as and when directed. ii) The petitioners shall not influence or intimidate any witness or tamper with evidence or commit any offence while on bail. This petition is allowed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. krs.