IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2009 / 27TH JYAISHTA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 2810 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRMP.1230/2009 IN CRIME NO.122/09 OF SASTHAMCOTTA POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- HARISH, AGED 26 YEARS, KALLUMMOOTTIL HOUSE, KOTHAPURAM, PADINJARE KALLADA, KUNNATHOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN SRI.K.K.GOPINATHAN NAIR SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) SRI.MATHEW SUNNY RESPONDENT(S): STATE & COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SASTHAMCOTTA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ----------------------------- B.A.No.2810 of 2009 ----------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of June, 2009 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.122 of 2009 of Sasthamcotta Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 465 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The defacto complainant is the wife of the petitioner. She filed a complaint before the court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sasthamcotta, which was forwarded to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, the crime was registered. The allegation of the defacto complainant is that gold ornaments weighing 75 sovereigns belonging to her were pledged in a Co-operative Bank and forging her signature, a consent authorisation letter was created by the petitioner and without her knowledge or consent, the gold ornaments were taken back from the Bank by the petitioner and thereby, he has committed the offence. 4. The learned public prosecutor submitted that the evidence BA No.2810/2009 2 so far collected is only the statements of the defacto complainant and other witnesses and that the handwriting and signature in the consent letter were not subjected to examination by a handwriting expert. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is prepared to co-operate with the police in whatever manner possible for the smooth and proper conduct of the investigation and he is prepared to provide his specimen signature and handwriting to the police on any date on which the police requires the same. 6. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence and the investigation already made, I am of the view that, for the time being, anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. Accordingly, there will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the petitioner, the officer in charge of the police station shall release him on bail on his executing bond for Rs.50,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions: a) The petitioner shall report before the investigating officer between 9 A.M. and 11 A.M. on all Mondays, till the final report is filed or until further orders; b) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; BA No.2810/2009 3 c) The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigating officer and shall provide his specimen signature and handwriting to the investigating officer as and when required. d) The petitioner shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence; e) The grant of anticipatory bail shall cease to have operation on receipt of the report by the handwriting expert or any other expert, if it reveals that the authorisation letter is not a genuine one. However, it is made clear that this will not preclude the petitioner from moving an application for regular bail after surrendering before the learned Magistrate. f) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to be cancelled. It is made clear that the observations made above are intended only for disposal of this Bail Application. The Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated above. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl