IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 21ST JULY 2008 / 30TH ASHADHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 4573 of 2008(B) ---------------------------------------- OS.387/2002 of I ADDL.SUB COURT,ERNAKULAM CRIME NO.360/2008 OF MATTANCHERRY POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 : ------------------------------------------ LIJI VINCENT W/O.DECEASED VINCENT 44 YEARS ATHIPOZHI HOUSE, MOOLANKUZHI, MUNDEMVELI PO., KOCHI. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.AJAI KUMAR RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT : -------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE MATTANCHRY POLICE STATION, MATTANCHERRY, KOCHI. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/07/2008, ALONG WITH BA NO. 4393 OF 2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. -------------------------------------- B.A.Nos.4573 and 4393 of 2008 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of July, 2008 O R D E R These petitions are for anticipatory bail. 2. Petitioner in B.A.No.4573/08 is accused no.2 and petitioner in B.A.No.4393/08 is accused no.6 in the crime. The alleged offences are registered against the petitioners and others under Sections 166, 167, 464, 466, 193, 195, 196, 197, 120(B) and read with Section 34 IPC. According to the prosecution, the accused conspired and a property belonging to the second accused was sold to the 3rd accused, without showing the court- attachment in the encumbrance certificate. The defacto complainant had obtained an attachment over the property through court but the relevant accused committed forgery by making false documents, without showing the attachment in the encumbrance certificate. 3. Learned counsel for the second accused submitted that the defacto complainant had filed O.S.No.387/02 on the file of the Sub Court, Ernakulam against the petitioner for recovery of BA No.4573/08 2 money based on a promissory note. In the said suit, an attachment was also obtained over the property on 9.8.2002. But, the suit was dismissed as per the judgment dated 27.6.2003 and after a long period of expiry of the appeal time, the property was sold to the third accused on 6.10.2003. At that time, there was no attachment, it is submitted. 4. According to defacto complainant, he had obtained an attachment from the appellate court. But according to learned counsel for the second accused, it must have been done, after the appeal time is over, and no communication was issued either to the second accused or to the Registrar's office regarding the attachment. The sixth accused is the L.D. Clerk working in the Registrar's office during the relevant time. It is submitted that the relevant document was prepared by another LD clerk and the sixth accused has signed in the document only as an examiner, in the routine manner. He is absolutely innocent of the allegations made. 5. Learned public prosecutor submitted that the petitioners may be directed to surrender before the Investigating BA No.4573/08 3 Officer for interrogation and subject to that, he has no objection in granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Hence, the following order is passed: (i) The petitioners are directed to surrender before the Investigating officer within seven days from the date of this order and make themselves available for interrogation. (ii) Thereafter, in case of arrest, if any, they shall be released on bail on their executing bond for Rs.25,000/- each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer on condition that they will co-operate with the investigation and appear before him as and when directed. These petitions are allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE csl