IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2008 / 27TH SRAVANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 4820 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.211 OF 2008 OF KARAMANA POLICE STATION PETITIONERS ---------------------------- 1. MAYA MURUGON ,THYCAUD MEDICALS NEAR P.R.S.HOSPITAL , KILLIPALAM, THIRUVANTHAPURAM 2. S.MURUGON T.C.NO.21/1859,SREE KRISHNA KRIPA KILLIPALAM,THIRUVANTHAPURAM BY ADV. SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KARAMANA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.M.S.BREEZE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/08/2008, ALONG WITH BA NO. 4926 OF 2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No.4820 of 2008 & B.A.No.4926 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th August, 2008 O R D E R These petitions are for bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 120B, 405, 423, 425, 503 and 504 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. Petitioners in BA.No.4820 of 2008 are accused 1 and 2 and petitioner in BA.No.4926 of 2008 is the 6th accused in the same crime. Accused 1 and 2 are husband and wife. Accused No.6 is their son. First petitioner was the proprietrix of a medical store and it was being conducted by the second accused, who is her husband. The de facto complainant entered into a partnership with accused 1 and 2 and Rs.13 lakhs was spent for business. 3. A partnership deed was also executed. But later, the shop was sold to another person, behind the back of the de facto complainant and the accused allowed the articles to be removed from the shop. Sixth accused also aided in transporting the articles out of the shop. On a complaint made BA.4820 & 4926/08 2 by the de facto complainant, a crime was registered against the petitioners in these two applications and others. 4. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that Rs.6 lakhs was borrowed by accused 1 and 2 from de facto complainant and a blank signed stamp paper worth Rs.1,000/- was handed over to the de facto complainant. This was misused to forge a partnership deed. No partnership deed was executed by the petitioners as alleged and, when the petitioners apprehended that there was a move to fabricate the document, a notice was issued to the de facto complainant. But, in spite of that, document was forged and utilising the same a false complaint is filed, it is submitted. 5. Learned counsel for petitioners also submitted that earlier on the same set of facts, a petition was filed before the Fort Police Station and an anticipatory bail application was filed before this Court as B.A.No.4230 of 2008. In that application, it was submitted by learned Public Prosecutor that there is only a petition pending before the police, but the dispute being one of civil nature, the party may seek remedy before the civil court. The petition was disposed of as per BA.4820 & 4926/08 3 order dated 1.7.2008 by this Court. Thereafter, a private complaint was filed before the Magistrate Court on the same set of facts and it was forwarded to Karamana Police Station, where the crime was registered. Both the cases arise from the same dispute. A civil case is also pending. 6. Learned counsel for petitioners also pointed out, referring to the partnership deed (vide Annexure A3) allegedly executed, that a mere perusal of the last page of the partnership deed itself is enough to reveal that it is a falsely fabricated one. The names of accused 1 and 2 are written in the deed just above the names of witnesses. But, the signature of accused 1 and 2 are not seen at that relevant position in the document. But the signature put at the bottom of the page, while blank stamp paper was handed over to the de facto complainant are still present in the document and there is a wide gap between the concluding portion of the deed and the signature at the bottom. If the petitioners are arrested and detained in connection with the crime which is founded on a document like this which is forged as seen from Annexure- A3, it will result in grave injustice and the petitioners will BA.4820 & 4926/08 4 suffer irreparable loss, it is submitted. 7. Learned counsel for de facto complainant is heard. Learned Public Prosecutor is also heard. Learned counsel for de facto complainant submitted that accused 1 and 2 were engaged in similar type of cheating earlier also. Another partnership was formed by them with another person and some money was also procured from him and it was only thereafter that a partnership deed was executed between accused 1 and 2 and the de facto complainant suppressing earlier partnership. For the formation of the present partnership Rs.13 lakhs had to be spent by the de facto complainant. The accused were however allowed to continue the business, but on one fine morning, behind the back of the de facto complainant, articles from the medical store were allowed to be taken away, and the shop was sold to yet another person. 8. Learned Public Prosecutor also opposed this application and submitted that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. BA.4820 & 4926/08 5 8. On hearing both sides, particularly on going through the earlier order in the bail application, wherein the Prosecutor himself conceded that the dispute between the parties is of civil nature and on a close perusal of the copy of the partnership deed produced along with the petition and marked as Annexure A3, and taking into consideration the fact that a civil case is already pending, I find that anticipatory bail can be granted on conditions. Hence, the following order is passed: i) Petitioners shall surrender before the investigating officer within seven days from today and make themselves available for interrogation and they shall also co-operate with the investigation. ii) Thereafter, in the event of their arrest, if any, they shall be produced before the Magistrate Court concerned on the same day and if any application is moved, 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 the learned Magistrate on the following conditions: BA.4820 & 4926/08 6 (1) Petitioners shall report before the investigating officer as and when directed. (2) Petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation. (3) Petitioners shall not commit any offence while on bail. Petitions are allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.