IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 23RD OCTOBER 2008 / 1ST KARTHIKA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3980 of 2008() ------------------------- CRMP.700/2008 of SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKOE .................... (CRIME NO.553/2008 OF KOYILANDY POLICE STATION) PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- POOKKAT MOIDEENKUTTY, SON OF BAVUTTY HAJI, AGED 68 YEARS, RESIDING IN MOODADI AMSOM AND VELLARAKKAD DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB ABRAHAM SMT.KOCHUMOL KODUVATH RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. P.P.RAMLA, W/O.MOIDU HAJI, AGED 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT “SHAHANIYA”, PURAKKAD AMSOM AND DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. POOVATH TAZHE KUNI RAJAN, SON OF CHATHUKUTTY, AGED 40 YEARS, CHEMANCHERI AMSOM, THUVVAKKOD DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 3. EDAVATH HAMZAM, AGED 48 YEARS, SON OF MOHAMMED, MODDADI AMSOM AND DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 4. K.PREMANANDAN, AGED 39 YEARS, SON OF NARAYANAN NAIR, RESIDING AT MOODADI AMSOM, VELLARAKKAD DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOYILANDY POLICE STATION AND IS REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss R. BASANT, J. ----------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 3980 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of October, 2008 O R D E R Petitioner is the defacto complainant in Crime No.553/08 of Koilandy Police Station. That crime has been registered on the basis of a private complaint filed by the petitioner and referred to the police by the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Crime has been registered. Investigation is in progress. At this juncture the accused persons went before the learned Sessions Judge, Thodupuzha and sought anticipatory bail. The crime is registered for offences punishable, inter alia, under Secs. 120 B, 467 and 471 read with Section 34 IPC. The crux of the allegations is that a forged document was brought into existence by the accused persons in which it was fraudulently and falsefully shown that 13 items of properties were assigned by the petitioner. The learned Sessions Judge by Annexure (c) order granted anticipatory bail to the four accused persons, subject to conditions. The operative portion of the order reads as follows: “9. Considering all the aspects, the petitioners are to be granted pre-arrest bail but on the following conditions:- 1. If the petitioners are arrested, they shall be Crl.M.C. No. 3980 OF 2008 -:2:- released on bail on their executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like amount. 2. They shall appear before the S.I. of police, Koilandy on all Mondays and Saturdays between 9 a.m. and 10 a.m. 3. They shall make themselves available for interrogation including custodial interrogation as and when required by the Investigating Officer. 4. They shall not leave Kozhikode district without the permission of the court. 5. They shall surrender their passports, if any, in the court below and in case they have none, they shall file affidavit to that effect. 6. Sureties shall produce attested photocopy of their photo identity cards. This order shall be in effect only for a period of two weeks from today and within that period, the petitioners shall surrender before the Magistrate and they can seek regular bail from that court (See the Supreme Court decision reported in 2008(1) KLT 839). ” 2. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the order. The short prayer is that by invoking the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the order of bail in terms of Crl.M.C. No. 3980 OF 2008 -:3:- the respondents may be quashed. 3. I am not persuaded to agree that there are any satisfactory, compelling or exceptional reasons which can persuade this Court to invoke its extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to interfere with the impugned order granting anticipatory bail. The learned Sessions Judge appears to have adverted to all relevant aspects in the impugned order. Sufficient satisfactory and appropriate conditions to facilitate a proper investigation do also appear to have been insisted. I am, in these circumstances, not persuaded to agree that the impugned order warrants interference on any valid ground. 4. This Crl.M.C, in these circumstances, is dismissed. R. BASANT, JUDGE ttb Crl.M.C. No. 3980 OF 2008 -:4:- Crl.M.C. No. 3980 OF 2008 -:5:-