IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2008 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7429 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO. 933/2008 OF KAYAMKULAM POLICE STATION PETITIONER (S): ACCUSED: ---------------------------- 1. SAINULABDHEEN, S/O.HUSSAIN, KUTTIYIL KIZHAKKATHIL, CHERAVALLY, KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE. 2. VARGHESE PHILIP, JOY VILLA, CHERAVALLY MURI, KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE. 3. M.A.JALAL, MALIKAYIL, CHERAVALLY MURI, KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: --------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KAYAMKULAM POLICE STATION THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A. No. 7429 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 15th day of December,2008 O R D E R Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 463, 464, 465, 467, 478 read with section 34 IPC. According to prosecution, 1st accused wanted to purchase property of de facto complainant and he made a request for the same, but he was not willing to sell the property. Therefore, 1st accused, with the help of accused nos. 2 and 3, created a fake promissory note and using the same, filed a suit against de facto complainant, and obtained an attachment order against the property of de facto complainant. On coming to know of this offence, and attachment order, de facto complainant deposited the amount in court and got the attachment order lifted. Thereafter, de facto complainant filed a complaint. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that this is a false case and it is filed as a counter blast to the civil case filed against de facto complainant. He owed an amount of Rs.50,000/- to BA 7429/2008 2 1st accused and he also issued a promissory note and on the strength of promissory note, a suit was filed and attachment order was obtained against the property of de facto complainant. Thereafter, a false complaint is filed stating that the promissory note is forged. Hence, anticipatory bail may be granted, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that a clever tactic is adopted against de facto complainant to grab her property and promissory note is forged by 2nd accused at the instance of 1st accused. The 3rd accused is a signatory in the promissory note. Petitioners are required for interrogation to bring out the facts which are within their exclusive knowledge. 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied of the submissions of the learned Public Prosecutor and this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. In the nature of allegations made, petitioners are required for arrest and interrogation. Hence, petitioners are directed to surrender before the Magistrate court concerned or before the Investigating Officer without any delay and co-operate with the investigation. Whether they surrender or not, BA 7429/2008 3 police is at liberty to arrest them and proceed in accordance with law. With this direction, this petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. mn.