IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2009 / 28TH SRAVANA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 4608 of 2009() -------------------------------------------- OS.90/2006 of SUB COURT, TIRUR CRIME NO.286/2006 OF PONNANI POLICE STATION. .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------- KARUNAKARAN, S/O.JANAKI AMMA, CHORUMVEETTIL, KUTTIPPALA POST,NADUVATTOM PONNANI TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTING SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PONNANI POLICE STATION. SRI JIKKU GEORGE, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 4608 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 19th day of August, 2009 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.286/2006 of Ponnani Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 465, 471 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The defacto complainant filed a petition dated 7/07/2006 before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tirur. In the petition, it is stated that the defacto complainant is the owner of certain items of properties and that she received a registered notice on 1/07/2006 issued by the petitioner herein stating that there was an agreement for sale entered into between the defacto complainant and the petitioner. According to the defacto complainant, the agreement was concocted by the petitioner and the signature therein was forged. It is stated in the petition that the defacto complainant does not even know the petitioner. B.A. No. 4608/2009 Page numbers 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the petitioner filed O.S. No.90/2006 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge of Tirur against the defacto complainant for specific performance of the contract in respect of the property mentioned in the petition filed by the defacto complainant. That suit was decreed as per the judgment and decree dated 15/11/2006. Annexure A is the judgment. It is submitted that the judgment has become final. 5. Though the crime was registered in 2006, the petitioner was not arrested and no final report was filed in this case till 2009. Now the petitioner apprehends arrest. It cannot be said that the apprehension of the petitioner is without substance. When the suit filed by the petitioner is decreed on the basis of the agreement in question, there is substance in the contention of the petitioner that it would not be proper for further investigation of the case. 6. 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. B.A. No. 4608/2009 Page numbers There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the petitioner, the officer in charge of the police station shall 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 scm