IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 6TH JANUARY 2009 / 16TH POUSHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7579 of 2008 ------------------------------------- (CRIME NO.644/2007 OF MALA POLICE STATION) PETITIOENR/7TH ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------- HUSSAIN, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.EASA, THIRUTHIURATH HOUSE, KOCHUKADAVU DESOM, THIRUMUKKULAM VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.DIVAKARAN. RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K.S. SIVAKUMAR. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/01/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. K. HEMA, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A. No. 7579 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 6th day of January,2009 O R D E R Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 IPC. According to prosecution, property, which stands in the name of 3rd accused and his former wife (de facto complainant), was sold by executing a document by 3rd accused and his present wife (who is the 4th accused) and thereby, in furtherance of common intention she personated herself as former wife, while executing the document. The document was attested by accused 6 and 7. Seventh accused is petitioner herein. All of them committed the offence in furtherance of the common intention and de facto complainant filed a private complaint, based on which the crime was registered. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is apprehending arrest alleging that he only executed the document as a witness. Petitioner is absolutely innocent. In the complaint no specific allegation was made against petitioner, but he was implicated in the offence only at a belated stage and that there are only four accused in the complaint. The name of BA 7579/08 -2- former wife and present wife are one and the same and hence, he has not committed any offence knowingly. But it is conceded that petitioner is a friend of 3rd accused. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that this is a clear case where the property belongs to de facto complainant which stands in the joint name of herself and 3rd accused was assigned by executing a document by 4th accused personating herself to be de facto complainant and this was done with the connivance and knowledge of all the accused. They have committed the offence in furtherance of common intention. It is not a fit case to grant bail at this stage case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied of the submissions made by learned Public Prosecutor. Considering the nature of allegations made, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail. 6. Crime was registered as early as on 25-11-2007 and petitioner has not so far surrendered before the court or before the police. Hence, petitioner is directed to surrender before the police without any delay and co-operate with the investigation. Whether he surrenders or not, BA 7579/08 -3- police is at liberty to arrest him and proceed in accordance with law. With this direction, this petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. mn.