IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2010 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 1410 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.159/2010 OF PARIPALLY POLICE STATION PETITIONER (S): 2ND ACCUSED: -------------------------------- MANIKANTAN PILLAI AGED 42, S/O.JANARDHANAN PILLAI, PARAVILA VEEDU, BHOTHAKULAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.VENUGOPALAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANTS: ---------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PARIPPALLY POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.1410 of 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of March, 2010 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.2 in Crime No.159 of 2010 of Paripally Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 120B, 167, 197, 406, 420, 465 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The de facto complainant filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Paravur, Kollam. The complaint was forwarded to the police under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The police registered the crime as Crime No.159 of 2010 for the aforesaid offences. 4. The de facto complainant is the Secretary of Nadakkal Service Co-operative Bank. It is alleged that accused No.1 mortgaged an item of immovable property in favour of the de facto complainant Bank and obtained a loan. He produced a “no encumbrance certificate” to make it appear that there was no BA No.1410/2010 2 encumbrance on the property. It is alleged that the property belonged to accused No.3. He had mortgaged the property in a Co-operative Bank for taking a loan in the year 2001. Thereafter, accused No.3 sold the property to accused No.2. In the year 2003, accused No.2 sold the property to accused No.1. Thereafter, accused No.1 mortgaged the property in favour of the de facto complainant Bank. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that whatever may be the allegations against accused No.1, the petitioner cannot be made liable at all for any offence. There is no allegation that accused No.2 has manipulated any records. 6. Accused No.2 had not mortgaged the property to the Bank. He has not availed any loan. Prima facie, there is substance in the contention put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence and other circumstances, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the petitioner, the officer in charge of the police station shall BA No.1410/2010 3 release him on bail on his executing bond for Rs.15,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions: a) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; b) The petitioner shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence; c) The petitioner shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail; d) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to be cancelled. The Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated above. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl