IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 24TH JANUARY 2008 / 4TH MAGHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 7912 of 2007() ----------------------------- CRIME NO. 618/07 OF VARKALA POLICE STATION PETITIONERS : ACCUSED: ------------------------- 1. K.P.SHAMSUDEEN, S/O.PAKEER MUHAMMED, KHADEEJA MANSION, VENKULAM, EDAVA, VARKALA. 2. SHIHABUDEEN, S/O.MUHAMMED KUNJU, CHEKKALAYIL, EDAVA, VARKALA. BY ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN SRI.SAIJO HASSAN SRI.A.S.SABU RESPONDENTS: STATE: ------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/01/2008, ALONG WITH BA NO. 8053 OF 2007 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.Nos. 7912 & 8053 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 24th day of January, 2008 O R D E R These applications are for anticipatory bail. The petitioners face allegations in two crimes, one registered at the Pulpally police station and the other at the Varkala police station. The crux of the allegations in both the crimes is that the first accused defrauded the defacto complainant in the Pulpally crime by inducing her to believe that he is an eligible bachelor. She thus agreed to marry him. As consideration for the marriage, he, in collusion with the other accused, had allegedly obtained large amounts and ornaments from the defacto complainant and her parents. It is further alleged that the petitioners herein had facilitated the commission of the crime by procuring for the first accused a forged consent letter from the Edava Muslim Jama Ath. 2. As both crimes relate to the same subject matter, the learned Prosecutor was requested to clarify and the learned Prosecutor submits that the Varkala police shall not be B.A.Nos. 7912 & 8053 of 2007 2 continuing the investigation in Crime No.618 of 2007 and the crime is being transferred from Varkala to Pulpally police station to conduct a consolidated investigation. In these circumstances the submission/ undertaking of the Prosecutor that the police shall not arrest the petitioners separately in Crime No.618 of 2007 can be accepted and B.A. 7912 of 2007 can be dismissed. 3. Coming to B.A.8053 of 2007, it relates to Crime No. 283 of 2007 of Pulpally police station. The defacto complainant has alleged in the F.I. statement that she was misled by five accused persons to believe that the first accused was an eligible bachelor. He was married earlier. To defraud her and to fraudulently induce her, a certificate No. 1591 allegedly issued by the Edava Muslim Jama Ath was produced. The petitioners herein, it is alleged, are responsible for the issue of that certificate. That certificate is forged because Certificate No. 1591 as per records is issued not to the first accused, but in favour of someone else. The petitioners had participated in the marriage, thereby indicating their complicity in the practice of deception and fraud and also forging of document. This in a nutshell is the case of the police now. B.A.Nos. 7912 & 8053 of 2007 3 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners does not dispute the fact that the petitioners had attended the wedding. He does not dispute the fact that the first accused may have married earlier. That certificate No.1591 relates to another marriage as per the registers of Edava Muslim Jama Ath is also not disputed. The crux of the contention is that the petitioners are not responsible for the issue of the alleged forged certificate No.1591. 5. The learned Prosecutor opposes the application. He submits that the available indications must clearly convince the court that the petitioners had attended the marriage and had allegedly induced the defacto complainant to believe that the first accused is an eligible bachelor. They must have been responsible for the production of the certificate from Edava Muslim Jama Ath. In these circumstances the petitioners may not be granted anticipatory bail, it is prayed. 6. The case diary has been placed before me for my perusal. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit in the opposition by the learned Prosecutor. I agree with the learned Prosecutor that this is a fit case where the petitioners must resort to the ordinary and B.A.Nos. 7912 & 8053 of 2007 4 normal procedure of appearing before the Investigator or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the ordinary course. 5. These applications are accordingly dismissed. B.A.No. 7912 of 2007 is dismissed accepting the submissions of the learned Prosecutor and after recording the finding that the apprehension of the petitioners that they will be arrested in Crime No.618 of 2007 of Varkala Police Station is not justified. B.A.No. 8053 of 2007 is dismissed with the observation that if the petitioners appear before the learned Magistrate and apply for bail after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate must proceed to pass orders on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. (R. BASANT) Judge tm B.A.Nos. 7912 & 8053 of 2007 5 R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.Nos. 7912 & 8053 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 10th day of January, 2008 O R D E R Learned Prosecutor prays for time to take further instructions. The precise role of the petitioners in the alleged crime shall be specified by the learned Prosecutor on the next date of posting. He shall also take instructions and submit whether any steps are being taken to consolidate these two cases, where the allegations raised are substantially the same. Learned Prosecutor undertakes that the petitioners shall not be arrested till the next date of posting. Call on 17.1.2008. (R. BASANT) Judge tm