IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 21ST NOVEMBER 2008 / 30TH KARTHIKA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6779 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO. 565/2008 OF PALA POLICE STATION PETITIONER:- ------------------------------ MANOJ SEBASTIAN S/O. T.M.SEBASTIAN,THARAPPEL HOUSE, MADUKKAKUNNAM P.O.,KANJIRAPPALLY, TALUK NOW RESIDING AT THARAPPEL HOUSE, KAROOR P.O., LALAM KARA & VILLAGE, PALA. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.SAJI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. S.I.OF POLICE PALA POLICE STATION. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A. No. 6779 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 21st day of November,2008 O R D E R Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 417, 420, 423, 465, 467,468, 471 read with section 34 IPC. According to prosecution, de facto complainant's son purchased an extent of property belonging to accused 2 to 4 on court auction. Thereafter, 5th accused in furtherance of common intention with other accused forged a sale agreement purporting to be executed in favour of 1st accused in respect of the property which was sold in favour of de facto complainant. On the basis of a forged agreement, a suit was filed as O.S.no.99/2008. Agreement was dated 28-2-2008, but stamp paper was post- dated as 17-6-2008. This fact was pointed out to court (which apparently revealed that it was a clear case of forgery) and hence, the suit was dismissed for default. Therefore, de facto complainant, as power of attorney of his son, filed a private complaint alleging various offences stated above against accused 1 to 6. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is absolutely innocent of the allegations made. Property, which is allegedly sold in court auction, belongs to BA 6779/08 -2- petitioner as well. It will be clear from the private complaint itself. Petitioner has persuaded de facto complainant's son to purchase the property in court auction. But , thereafter, 1st accused created some document in respect of the property, for which petitioner is not responsible. Since de facto complainant's son was dismissed petitioner from service, he has falsely implicated petitioner in this case also, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioner is having criminal background. He is a convict in a case before the Special Court for the trial of cases of C.B.I. Warrants were issued against him in a long pending case in a Magistrate Court. The 5th accused has been dismissed from de facto complainant's sons' firm on allegation of misappropriation. The 5th accused has a main role in forging the document with a view to defeat the de facto complainant's son's right. To such person anticipatory bail may not be granted, it is submitted. On the facts in this case, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. The involvement of 5th accused has to be ascertained by investigation and his interrogation is required, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides and on considering the nature of allegations made and the nature of investigation required, I am BA 6779/08 -3- satisfied that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory hail. In the nature of the allegations made, interrogation of petitioner will be required to find out the facts which are within the exclusive knowledge of petitioner. The fact that warrants have been issued against him in another case and he is required for trial also dissuades me from invoking provision under section 438 Cr.P.C. Petitioner is directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer without any delay and co-operate with the investigation. Whether he surrenders or not, police is at liberty to arrest him and proceed in accordance with law. With this direction, this petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. mn.