IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 7TH AUGUST 2008 / 16TH SRAVANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 4928 of 2008() ----------------------------------- CRIME NO.88/CR/EKM/2008 OF CBCID ERNAKULAM, IN CRIME NO.666/2008 OF ERNAKULAM TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 : ------------------------------------ R.GIREESH, S/O LATE RAJAN, PULIYANEZHATH HOUSE, BEHIND AYYAPPANKAVU TEMPLE, ERNAKULAM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.K.DAMODARAN (SR.) SRI.ALAN PAPALI SRI.SOJAN MICHEAL SRI.GILBERT GEORGE CORREYA RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT : ------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, (DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CBCID SIG - III, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION SRI.P.G.THAMPI PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.K.SURESH THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------ B.A. No.4928 OF 2008 ------------------------------ Dated this the 7th day of August, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for bail. 2. This is the 2nd application for bail. Petitioner is the 2nd accused in the crime which was registered suo motu by the police under Section 406 IPC against the 1st accused. During the course of investigation, it was revealed that the petitioner was also involved in the offence and the Sections were altered and offence under Sections 120B, 465, 468, 471, 477 and 34 IPC were incorporated and the petitioner was implicated as 2nd accused. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though there are several allegations made against the 1st accused in connection with a property deal as a managing trustee of a Trust, the allegations against the petitioner who is the 2nd accused are limited. He is not even a member or an office bearer of the society. He has no connection with the society. But an offence under section 406 IPC is also included. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the entire contentions were considered by this Court in the earlier B.A.4928/2008 2 bail application which was dismissed on 17.07.2008 in B.A.4419/2008. The petitioner is only an Architect by profession who hails from a reputed family. Except that he had acquaintance with the 1st accused in connection with his profession, and for astrological predictions, he has no other dealing with the 1st accused. It was submitted that the petitioner cannot be said to have committed an offence under Section 406 IPC in connection with the funds of the trust, since he is not a member or an office bearer of the society. 5. I have already referred to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner relating to the offence under Section 477 IPC. The allegation is that the petitioner had destroyed a copy of the agreement which was fraudulently executed by one of the owners of the property to whom the 1st accused had sold the property, which fetched a huge amount as profit. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the copy of the agreement was destroyed, the original was seized by the police. The property was sold also, even prior to the registration of the crime. Strictly speaking the offence does not fall under Section 477 IPC, since the said provision does not take any effect an agreement of this nature, B.A.4928/2008 3 it is submitted. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the bail application was rejected mainly because the investigation had at its initial stage. Twenty two days have elapsed after dismissal of the application for bail, and even though investigation has been conducted, no incriminating materials could be found out against the petitioner, it is submitted. In such circumstances, there is no point in putting the petitioner in custody, especially since he has already completed 52 days of detention in judicial custody, it is argued. On expiry of 60 days, he is entitled for statutory bail also. 7. Learned Director General of Prosecution submitted that considering the stage of investigation and the period of detention, he has no objection in granting bail on stringent conditions. But appropriate conditions may be imposed to prevent the petitioner from influencing the witnesses who are yet to be questioned. They are not allegedly available for questioning because they hail from foreign countries. 8. On hearing both sides, I find that the bail can be granted to the petitioner on conditions. Hence, petitioner is granted bail on the following terms and B.A.4928/2008 4 conditions:- The petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Magistrate court concerned on the following conditions : (i) The petitioner shall surrender his pass port, if any, within 7 days of his release from custody before the Magistrate court concerned. (ii) The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer on every Monday between 10 a.m. and 1 p.m. until further orders. (iii) The petitioner shall not leave Ernakulam District except with the previous permission of the learned Magistrate. (iv) The petitioner shall not influence or intimidate any witness or tamper with evidence or commit any offence while on bail and in case of breach of this condition, bail is liable to be cancelled. The petition is allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE pac