IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2010 / 10TH ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3598 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.82/10 OF THRITHALA POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD. (S): PETITIONER ------------------------------ P.ASHARAF, AGED 36, S/O.ABDUL KHADER, POOVENGAL, KIZHATHUR DESOM, PALLIPRA, PATTAMBI,PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLCIE, THRITHALA POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ---------------------------------------------- Bail Application No.3598 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 1st July, 2010. O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 464, 420 and 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, first accused is the husband of defacto complainant. They were married in the year 2006. Accused Nos.1, 4 and 6 took defacto complainant to a Bank and made her open an account on 8.3.2007, under compulsion and thereafter, some blank signed cheque leaves were obtained from her by first accused. The signed blank cheque leaves were forged by the accused, showing 6th accused (petitioner) as the payee. Thereafter, 6th accused filed a complaint against defacto complainant alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. This was done after hatching a criminal conspiracy among accused nos.1 to 6 and with common intention to cheat defacto complainant. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is absolutely innocent of the allegations made. The BA NO. 3598/10 2 defacto complainant had borrowed some amount from petitioner and issued a cheque for the discharge of the liability. The cheque was dishonoured on presentation to the Bank and a complaint was lodged against defacto complainant in the year 2007. The defacto complainant did not appear before the court for a long time, but in the year 2009, a petition was filed through the counsel, stating that defacto complainant was residing with her husband in Chennai. 4. According to petitioner, later, defacto complainant and her husband fell apart and thereafter, defacto complainant filed a complaint against her husband and relatives, alleging offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The present complaint was also filed, making false allegations of forgery etc. This complaint is lodged only as a defence to the complaint filed by petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, it is submitted. 5. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioner's interrogation is necessary to find out the manner in which the forgery is committed. The case diary reveals that specific allegations are made against petitioner that BA NO. 3598/10 3 he was also present when the account was opened and he had forged a signed blank cheque, showing him as payee, after hatching a conspiracy with defacto complainant's husband and others. He also filed a false complaint against her, alleging offence under Section 138, as revealed from the case diary. 6. On hearing both sides and while considering the various facts and circumstances, particularly in reference to the circumstances under which the complaint was lodged against the husband alleging offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code etc. and the need for interrogation of petitioner, I do not think that this is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. I am not persuaded by the mere delay in filing the complaint, while taking into consideration various other facts and circumstances. Petitioner is bound to surrender before the police and co-operate with the investigation, without any delay. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. tgs