IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 4TH APRIL 2008 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 1874 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.48/08 OF KOTTARAKARA POLICE STATION PETITIONER : ----------------- C.S.VIJAYA CHANDRAN,AGED 59, S/O.SREENIVASAN,BEENA BHAVAN,EZHUKONE VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK. NOW RESIDING AT GOPALAMANDIRAM,KALLERI BHAGAM, KARUNAGAPPILLY,KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.R.S.KUMAR SRI.JUDE B.ALEX RESPONDENTS: 1 -------------- STATE OF KERALA REP.BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER,KOTTARAKKARA POLICE STATION,KOLLAM DIST. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- B.A. No. 1874 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of April, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner is the 1st accused. He faces allegations in a crime registered alleging commission of offences punishable, inter alia, under Secs.468 and 471 of the IPC. 2. The crux of the allegations against the petitioner is that he had forged the signature of the de facto complainant to enable him to avail a loan from a co-operative bank with the de facto complainant as the first of the two guarantors. The petitioner is the 1st accused. The co-guarantor is the 2nd accused. Accused 3 and 5 are the bank officials. The de facto complainant complains that she had never gone to the bank or executed the loan document as one of the guarantors. Some one had impersonated as the de facto complainant at the B.A. No. 1874 of 2008 -: 2 :- instance of and with the knowledge of the other accused. They had misutilised the original title deed of the de facto complainant which she had allegedly handed over to her brother-in-law. The loan transaction took place in 1995. This crime is registered only in January, 2008. The crucial question to be decided in the case will be whether the signature appearing in the loan document which shows that the de facto complainant as the guarantor was affixed by the de facto complainant or not. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that, as a matter of fact, the loan was availed by the petitioner with the de facto complainant as a guarantor. The de facto complainant had signed as a guarantor. The de facto complainant is now attempting to wriggle out of her obligations as a guarantor in the said loan transaction. The de facto complainant has in 2007 assigned the property to a couple in which document she significantly does not explain her inability to produce the original deed. The learned counsel for the petitioner further points out that the bank had initiated proceedings earlier for recovery of the loan and the Arbitrator/Registrar of the Co-operative Societies, with the de facto complainant on the party array as the 2nd defendant, after due service of notice on the de facto complainant, had proceeded to pass an award/decree in 1998. B.A. No. 1874 of 2008 -: 3 :- It is too late in the day for the de facto complainant to feign ignorance of the loan transaction. In these circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the the de facto complainant is not speaking the whole truth. The petitioner does not dispute the liability to pay the loan amount; but asserts that he had not, in any manner, committed any culpable criminal offence. The petitioner, of course, has a further contention that the loan was availed not for his purpose alone; but for the purpose of the petitioner as well as the two guarantors. To a pointed query by this Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is willing to show his bona fides by remitting an amount of Rs.2 lakhs towards the liability to the bank straightaway. 3. After the discussions at the Bar and after considering the offer of the petitioner to show his bona fides, the learned Public Prosecutor does not oppose the application for anticipatory bail; but prays that the petitioner may be made available for interrogation as the Investigator has now got to find out the person who allegedly impersonated as the de facto complainant and executed the document. 4. Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am persuaded to agree that the directions under Sec.438 of the B.A. No. 1874 of 2008 -: 4 :- Cr.P.C. can be issued in favour of the petitioner. Appropriate conditions which shall secure the interests of a fair, efficient and expeditious investigation can, of course, be imposed. 5. In the result, this petition is allowed. Following directions are issued under Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C: (i) The petitioner shall appear before the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction at 11 a.m. on 11/4/08. He shall be released on regular bail on his executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate and shall produce before the learned Magistrate a document to show that an amount of Rs.2 lakhs has been paid in pursuance of the direction issued by this Court. (ii) The petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. on 15/4/08 and 16/4/08. During this period the Investigator shall be at liberty to interrogate the petitioner in custody and take all necessary steps for the proper conduct of the investigation. Thereafter the petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays and Fridays between 10 a.m. and 12 noon for a period of two months. Subsequently, he shall so make himself available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer as and when directed by the B.A. No. 1874 of 2008 -: 5 :- Investigating Officer in writing to do so. (iii) If the petitioner does not appear before the learned Magistrate as directed in clause (i), directions issued above shall thereafter stand revoked and the police shall be at liberty to arrest the petitioner and deal with him in accordance with law as if these directions were not issued at all. (iv) If the petitioner were arrested prior to his surrender on 11/4/08 as directed in clause (i) above, he shall be released on his executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- without any sureties undertaking to appear before the learned Magistrate on 11/4/08. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge