IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2010 / 10TH ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 227 of 2010() ---------------------------- (CRIME NO.613/2009 OF KARAMANA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM) PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 3 ----------------------------------------------- 1. HARIKUMAR S/O PARAMESHWARAN NAIR, AMBIKA VILASOM, ATHIYANNOOR, ARALUMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SREEKALA W/O HARIKUMAR, AMBIKA VILASOM, ATHIYANNOOR, ARALUMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. C.A.MANIKANTAN, DOCUMENT WRITER AND STAMP VENDOR, TC 39/1576 KILLIPALLAM, CHALAI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY SMT.K.R.RIJA RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J ----------------------- B.A No.227 OF 2010 -------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of July 2010 ORDER This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 120B r/w 34 of IPC. According to prosecution, petitioners hatched a criminal conspiracy to cheat de facto complainant and cause wrongful pain to them and wrongful loss to de facto complainant and her signature was obtained in a document which she did not intend to execute. While executing an assignment deed in favour of the elder daughter, conveying two cents of property to her, petitioners fraudulently caused a document to be signed by de facto complainant by which four cents are assigned in favour of second accused. The incident happened on 22/04/2009. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that a reading of FIS itself will reveal that it is impossible to create a document as alleged in FIS. De facto complainant is a retired overseer and second accused is her daughter. First accused is the son-in-law. De facto complainant has not filed any suit for setting aside the document. At the instance of the elder daughter, who wanted more property, this complaint is caused to be filed by the mother. It is also submitted that second accused is a practicing lawyer. B.A No.227 OF 2010 2 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that as per the allegations, four cents of property belonging to de facto complainant was caused to be assigned to second accused which was not intended by de facto complainant and therefore, second accused transferred the property to another person. The relevant documents are to be seized and for that purpose, interrogation of the accused is necessary, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides, considering the serious nature of allegations made, I do not think that this is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioners have not made out any ground to get anticipatory bail. Petitioners are required for interrogation and hence, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA JUDGE vdv