IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 16TH JANUARY 2009 / 26TH POUSHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7327 of 2008(A) ------------------------------------- CRIME NO.297/CR/SII/06 OF CBCID.SIG-2, KALOOR .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.4 : ------------------------------------ SUJESH JOY, AGED 28, S/O.JOY, CHALIL HOUSE, AMARAVATHY. P.O. KUMALY. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.UDAYABHANU RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT : ------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CRIME BRANCH (SIG-II), ERNAKULAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------ B.A. No.7327 OF 2008 ------------------------------ Dated this the 16th day of January, 2009 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. According to prosecution, first accused, who is the friend of second accused introduced second accused to the defacto complainant. First accused stated that second accused was running a business and that he proposed to make first accused a partner, but second accused is an insolvent person and his sister, who is the sixth accused herein had promised to advance money to second accused etc. Since second accused cannot collect the amount which will be sent by sister by way of Demand Draft, help was sought for from defacto complainant to collect money through his account. 3. The defacto complainant agreed to this and accordingly, accused nos.3 to 5 approached him with the Demand Draft. The Demand Draft was deposited in the defacto complainant's account and he issued a cheque for Rs.6 Lakhs in favour of third accused, as arranged. The said cheque was encashed by accused nos. 3 to 5. Later the Demand Draft was B.A. No.7327 of 2008 2 returned by ICICI Bank and he came to know that there is no such account holder and that the Demand Draft was a forged one. Accused nos.1 to 6 have in furtherance of common intention cheated the defacto complainant by forging documents and also by deceiving by making misrepresentations relating to accused nos.3 to 5. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is the fourth accused in the crime. According to him, there is no specific allegation against fourth accused in the complaint. Second accused owed some money to fourth accused and second accused gave cheque to fourth accused which was encashed by fourth accused, who is a film director. But a false case is foisted against petitioner without any basis, it is submitted. It is also submitted that he has not cheated any person by misrepresenting himself as any other person etc. 5. This petition is strongly opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that as per the evidence, Demand Draft which was handed over to the defacto complainant by accused nos. 3 to 5 is found to be forged. It is also submitted that money was procured by accused nos. 3 to 5 by collecting the B.A. No.7327 of 2008 3 cheques from the defacto complainant. Petitioner is to be interrogated to find out his complicity in the offence. Unless he is questioned, it will not be possible to ascertain the facts which are within his exclusive knowledge. In a case of this nature, where there is a calculated attempt to forge documents and procure money in the manner alleged by the prosecution, it may not be proper to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. On hearing both sides, considering the nature of the allegations made, I am satisfied that unless petitioner is interrogated by the police, it may not be possible to bring out all the relevant facts which are within his exclusive knowledge relating to the alleged forgery and encashing of cheques etc. Therefore if anticipatory bail is granted, it will stand in the way of an effective investigation. I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail in an offence of this nature. The crime was registered as early as on 20.07.2006 and petitioner is not available for interrogation or investigation. Petitioner is directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer without any delay and co-operate with the investigation. Whether he B.A. No.7327 of 2008 4 surrenders or not, police is at liberty to arrest him and proceed in accordance with law. The petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE pac