IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2010 / 29TH POUSHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 4758 of 2009() -------------------------------------- CRIME NO.539/2009 OF CHAVARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM. PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------- 1. SANTHAKUMARI, AGED 57 YEARS, PLATHODY VEEDU, KULANGARA BHAGOM, CHAVARA KOLLAM. 2. PADMA, W/O. RISHY, AGED 26 YEARS, SHIVASHYLAM, PERUNNA VILAYIL PUTHUKKADU, CHAVARA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.PRATHEESH.P SRI.S.SUDHEESHKAR RESPONDENT/ STATE: --------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REP. BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHAVARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM (THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ERNAKULAM.) SRI. M.S. BREEZ, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/01/2010 ALONG WITH BA NO. 4954 OF 2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. Nos. 4758 & 4954 of 2009 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of January, 2010 O R D E R B.A. No.4758/2009 is filed by accused Nos.1 and 2, while B.A. No.4954/2009 is filed by accused Nos. 3 and 4, in Crime No.539/2009 of Chavara Police Station, Kollam. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 120B, 465, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The crime was registered in Chavara Police Station on the complaint filed by the petitioners before the Magistrate having been referred to the police under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for investigation. 3. According to the de facto complainant, he has fractional right in a particular item of immovable property. The allegation is that the first accused gifted that item of property to her daughter, the second accused, as per a registered settlement deed. Accused Nos. 3 and 4 are the document writers. According to the de facto complainant,the document writers knew well that the first accused had no absolute power of disposition over the property. B.A. Nos. 4758 & 4954 /2009 2 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the de facto complainant had filed O.S. No. 404/2007 on the file of the Sub Court, Kollam claiming partition in respect of the item of immovable property, with respect to which the complaint was filed before the Magistrate's Court. It is also submitted that in the suit for partition, the contention raised by the plaintiff (de facto complainant) is that the document executed by the first accused in favour of the second accused is not valid and binding on the de facto complainant (plaintiff) and that he is entitled to the fractional share ignoring the settlement. 5. The complaint was filed and on reference to the police, the crime was registered in 2009. At that time, the suit filed by the de facto complainant was pending. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the complaint was filed and the criminal law was set in motion only to harass the petitioners. It is submitted that the de facto complainant could very well get the reliefs in the civil suit. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that pendency of the civil suit is not a bar for registering a crime, if the ingredients of the offence are made out. B.A. Nos. 4758 & 4954 /2009 3 7. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence and the fact that a suit is pending, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the petitioners, the officer in charge of the police station shall release them on bail on their executing bond for Rs.15,000/- each with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions: A) The petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; B) The petitioners shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence. C) The petitioners 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. Bail Applications are allowed to the extent indicated above. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm