IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2010 / 12TH JYAISTHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 2296 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.104/2010 OF KONDOTTY POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM (S): PETITIONER ------------------------------ PARAMESWARAN, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.MUNDAN, PARAMBILTHODI HOUSE, EDAPPARAMBA, MORAYUR POST, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH SEBASTIAN PURAYIDAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ---------------------------------------------- Bail Application No.2296 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 2nd June, 2010. O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 468, 471 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, first accused wanted to purchase a fridge from a firm and for this purpose, he applied for loan to Canara Bank. For obtaining loan, he had to furnish the quotation issued by the firm. He produced the same and a Demand Draft was issued in the name of the firm. By producing Demand Draft before the firm, first accused demanded payment of money directly to him, instead of giving fridge. The firm was not willing to do the same. 3. Therefore, petitioner colluded with second accused, who was working as the Secretary-in-Charge of a Co-operative Society. Both of them, in furtherance of common intention created an account in the name of the firm, by producing forged documents and Demand Draft was sent to the Canara Bank through this account. Since Demand Draft was sent through BA NO.2296/10 2 another account, matter was informed by the Bank to the firm. The firm found that both the accused have committed various offences and hence a complaint was lodged before the police. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is only second accused, who was working as an Attender though at the relevant time, he was acting in charge of the Secretary. He has nothing to do with the offence. He has not colluded with first accused, as alleged. He has only allowed first accused to open an account on the basis of the documents produced, it is submitted. 5. This petition is strongly opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioner has a specific role in the offence and it was with his connivance that offence was committed. Petitioner is required for interrogation. Both the accused have forged documents and used them as genuine for the purpose of cheating, in furtherance of common intention. 6. On hearing both sides and on considering the serious nature of the allegations made against petitioner and the need for interrogation to indicate the nature of his involvement, I BA NO.2296/10 3 am satisfied that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioner’s innocence could not be probabilised, except for some bare assertions. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. tgs