IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2008 / 21ST SRAVANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 4672 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.433/08 OF THIRUVALLA POLICE STATION PETITIONERS : ACCUSED ----------------- 1. SANJAY VARGHESE AGED 40, MARY VILLA, OTHERA, THIRUVALLA 2. V.P.THOMAS AGED 80, DO.DO. 3. MARIYAMMA VARGHESE AGED 78, DO.DO. BY ADV. SRI.T.P.PRADEEP RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------------------------------- Bail Application No.4672 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of August, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 468, 420, 448, 354 and 34 IPC. According to the prosecution, petitioners allegedly forged certain documents purporting to be executed by the defacto complainant and obtained overdraft facility in the name of a company, of which, the second petitioner is the Managing Director. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the defacto complainant's husband and the first petitioner were friends. Their family members had close contact with each other. Second petitioner and third petitioner are husband and wife and first petitioner is their son. Second petitioner is the Managing Director of a Chemicals and Fertiliser Company. Second petitioner passed away last Friday due to heart attack during pendency of this petition. The defacto complainant's husband is abroad. Defacto complainant wanted the first petitioner to make arrangements for money to construct a house and accordingly, a BA No.4672/08 2 loan was obtained by him for her, from a bank. Thereafter, some amount was also borrowed by the defacto complainant from the second petitioner. The money was not paid back, a notice was issued to her and thereafter, a suit was filed by the second petitioner and an attachment order was obtained over the property of the defacto complainant on 12.5.2008. 4. The defacto complainant's husband intimidated the first petitioner through his henchman and he was forced to file a complaint on that incident before the police on 7.6.2008. Thereafter, this complaint was filed on 11.6.2008, making false allegations which include an allegation that modesty was outraged one year back in 2007. All these happened because of the strained relationship due to money dealings. 5. This petition is opposed. Learned public prosecutor submitted that the defacto complainant had approached the first petitioner for construction of the house and in connection with the same, a loan was to be obtained and for this purpose, some signed papers were handed over to the first petitioner. Those were later misused for obtaining an overdraft facility in the name of the company run by the second petitioner. Another document BA No.4672/08 3 also was misused and a notice was issued on the strength of it stating that the defacto complainant owed more than Rs.7 lakhs to the second petitioner. It is only much later that the defacto complainant knew that the signed papers were forged and used for the purpose of obtaining overdraft facility. 6. On hearing both sides, I find that a civil suit is pending and on the facts and circumstances, I find that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners on conditions. Hence, the following order is passed: (1) Since second petitioner is reported to be no more, his prayer for anticipatory bail has become infructuous and hence, rejected. (2) First and third petitioners are directed to appear before the Investigating Officer within seven days from today and make themselves available for interrogation by the police. (3) Thereafter, in the event of arrest of the petitioners, if any, they shall be produced before the Magistrate Court concerned in accordance with law. (4) On production of the petitioners before learned BA No.4672/08 4 Magistrate, if any bail application is moved, 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 learned Magistrate on the following conditions: (i) The petitioners shall report before the Investigating Officer as and when directed. (ii) The petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation. (iii) The petitioners shall not influence or threaten any witness or commit any offence while on bail or tamper with evidence. The petition is allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE csl