IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 28TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 7TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6296 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.83/2008 OF KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION PETITIONER (S): ACCUSED NO.1 -------------------- SIBY SUKUMARAN S/O.SUKUMARAN, SURABHI, ULIYAKOVIL, ASRAMAM, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/11/2008, ALONG WITH BA NO. 6301 OF 2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.Nos.6296 & 6301 of 2008 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th November, 2008 O R D E R These petitions are for anticipatory bail. 2. According to prosecution, first accused was having an account in a Bank. Thereafter, he converted that account to a joint account in the name of first accused and defacto complainant, by forging certain documents. This was done with the connivance and aid of the second and third accused. Third accused is the Branch Manager of the Bank. All the accused, in furtherance of common intention, opened the Bank account in the joint name of the first accused and the defacto complainant and thereafter, first accused was issued 30 cheque leaves. He forged signature of the defacto complainant, her husband and her daughter in the cheques and those cheques were issued to several persons and misusing those cheques, defacto complainant was cheated. 3. Learned public prosecutor at the very outset pointed out that bail applications are filed in crime no.83/08 and 156/08. Crime no.156/08 was registered on the basis of a private BA No.6296/2008 2 complaint which was forwarded under Section 156(3) Crl.P.C. Crime no.83/08 was registered on the basis of a complaint given to the police. Both relate to the same set of facts. Therefore, the cases were clubbed and now it is treated as crime no.83/08 and investigation is conducted in that crime. Therefore, the crime no.156/08 does not exist now and bail application no.6301/08 is not maintainable in the light of the other bail application. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is innocent of the allegations made. Similar allegations were made against petitioner, who is the first accused herein, in the year 2007 in crime no.291, 292 and 105/07 of Kollam East Police Station. Anticipatory bail was granted in those cases to the first accused. The order is Annexure III. The charge sheets in those crimes are Annexures II and III. As per Annexure IV also, on same set of facts, this Court had granted anticipatory bail to the accused and therefore, in this case also anticipatory bail may be granted, it is submitted. 5. This petition is strongly opposed. Learned public prosecutor submitted that serious allegations are made against petitioner, relating to clear case of forgery, with the aid of a Bank Manager. He also misused the cheques with a view to BA No.6296/2008 3 cheat the defacto complainant, who had acquaintance with the first accused. Petitioner is required for custodial interrogation, since his specimen signatures have to be obtained and documents which are allegedly forged are to be examined by the expert. It is also pointed out that anticipatory bail orders produced by petitioner do not have any connection with present allegations made. Based on those orders no benefit will flow to the petitioner, it is submitted. 6. On hearing both sides and on going through the documents produced, I find that the allegations made against petitioner are serious in nature and petitioner's presence will be required for interrogation by the police. On going through the orders produced, I find that it was observed thus: “in as much as the aforementioned common petitioners were granted anticipatory bail in two other related crimes, I see no reason why the petitioners should be treated differently.” Therefore, anticipatory bail was granted to the accused in those cases including petitioner. But, the order does not show the nature of allegations made or the ground on which anticipatory bail was granted in two other related crimes referred to in the order. The said order is not produced. From a reading of Annexure IV BA No.6296/2008 4 also it appears that allegations made in the said case are totally different from the allegations made in this case. On the basis of those orders, I do not find any reason to grant anticipatory bail to petitioner in this case. No benefit can be extended to the petitioner on the basis of such orders. The crime was registered as early as on 23.1.2008 and petitioner was not available for interrogation or investigation so far. (i) Hence, petitioner is directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer and co-operate with investigation. Whether he surrenders or not, police is at liberty to arrest him and proceed in accordance with law. (ii) Bail application no.6296/08 is dismissed on merit. (iii) Bail application no.6301/08 is dismissed, as infructuous. K.HEMA, JUDGE csl