IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2009 / 2ND ASHADHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 3174 of 2009() ---------------------------------- CRIME NO.410/2009 OF ATTINGAL POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED ------------------------------------------ SUFANA, W/O.NISHAD, SUFANA MANZIL, MANAMBOOR VILLAGE, ALAMCODE, ATTINGAL. BY ADV. SRI.LIJU. M.P RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ATTINGAL POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. SRI. M.S. BREEZ, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 3174 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2009 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 2nd accused in Crime No.410/2009 of Attingal Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 406, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Accused No.1 is the husband of the petitioner, who is working abroad. The prosecution case is that promising that ornaments weighing 102 sovereigns belonging to the accused persons, which were pledged in Muthoot bank would be taken from the bank on payment of dues and those ornaments would be sold to the defacto complainant at the market rate, a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- was taken by the accused persons as advance from the defacto complainant. Ornaments were not taken back from the bank and the defacto complainant was cheated by the accused persons. 4. The case of the petitioner is that her husband and the defacto complainant had business transactions and the B.A. No. 3174 / 2009 2 latter had obtained blank signed papers and thumb impression of the first accused affixed in stamp papers and that the alleged agreement for sale of ornaments is a fabricated document. It is also stated that the signature of the petitioner in the agreement is a forged one. The petitioner relies on her passport to contend that her signature in the agreement is different from the signature in the passport. 5. In the facts and circumstances mentioned above, I am of the view that the apprehension of the petitioner cannot said to be ill founded. The discretionary relief under Section 438 can be granted to the petitioner in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, there will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the petitioner, the officer in charge of the police station shall release her on bail on her executing bond for Rs.50,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions: A) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; B.A. No. 3174 / 2009 3 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 scm