IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2010 / 16TH ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 1370 of 2010() ----------------------------------------- CMP.NO.265/2010 OF JFCM COURT, PERUMBAVOOR. (CRIME NO.136/2010 OF KURUPPAMPADY POLICE STATION,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT) .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------- BALAKRISHNAN, S/O.PRABHAKARAN NAIR, AGED 50 YEARS, EDAYATH HOUSE, ASSAMANOOR, PERUMBAVOOR. BY ADVS. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN, SRI.GEORGE MATHEW, SRI.DIPU JAMES. RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY S.I. OF POLICE, KURUPPAMPADY THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/07/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K.HEMA, J. ------------------ B.A. No. 1370 of 2010 ----------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of July, 2010 O R D E R Petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 465, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioner committed forgery of an agreement in respect of a pathway and produced the same before the Munsiff's Court and used the same as genuine and obtained an order in favour of the same. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that Annexure-2 is the agreement which is signed by both the parties in respect of the pathway and the order is obtained on the basis of Annexure-2. The said document is not forged. Which is clear on a perusal of the document itself, there is no interpolation, but the de facto complainant produced another document which is not signed by petitioner and he claimed that it was the document which was executed in respect of the pathway and filed the complaint. The document produced along with the complaint is not signed by petitioner and it is not the original agreement. Learned counsel for petitioner also submitted that petitioner was prepared to explain B.A. No. 1370 / 2010 2 his innocence to the investigating officer and an opportunity was given by this court to surrender before him. Petitioner accordingly reported before the investigating officer and he was questioned. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the agreement which is produced by the de facto complainant and the one produced by petitioner are different. 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that petitioners can be granted anticipatory bail on the conditions. Hence, the following order is passed: 1. Petitioners shall, in the event of his arrest be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs. 10,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer on condition that he will report before the investigating officer as and when directed and he will not tamper with the evidence. B.A. No. 1370 / 2010 3 2). This order will be in force only for a period of 15 days from today and in the meantime, petitioner shall seek regular bail from the court concerned. This petition is allowed. K. HEMA, JUDGE ln