IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 5TH OCTOBER 2009 / 13TH ASWINA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 4392 of 2009() ------------------------------------- CRIME NO. 140/2009 OF PERUVANTHANAM POLICE STATION .......................... PETITIONER: -------------------- 1. MUHAMMED IQBAL, AGED 50 YEARS S/O.HASSANKUTTY RAWTHAR, PANTHUVALLIL HOUSE EANTHAYAR, KANJIRAPPALLY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. SHEEBA IQBAL, AGED 36 YEARS W/O. IQBAL, PANTHUVALLIL HOUSE EANTHAYAR, KANJIRAPPALLY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3. HASSANKUTTY RAWTHER, AGED 84 YEARS S/O. KOCHU, PANTHUVALLIL HOUSE MULAKKUZHA VILLAGE, CHENGANNOOR. BY ADV. SRI.A.T. ANILKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY S.I.OF POLIC, PERUVANTHANAM POLICE STATION, IDUKKI. 2. THE D.Y.S.P., KATTAPPANA,IDUKKI. BY SRI. M. S. BREEZ PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 4392 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 5th day of October, 2009 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.140/2009 of Peruvanthanam Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 420, 468, 108, 109 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Accused No.2 is the wife of the accused No.1 and accused No.3 is the father of the accused No.1. 4. The gist of the prosecution case is that the first accused sold large extent of property to the defacto complainant without disclosing the fact that the property was subjected to mortgage to the Kearla Financial Corporation and thereby the accused persons committed the offence alleged. 5. The petitioners submit the following facts: The first petitioner was the owner of an extent of 45.90 acres of land. He proposed to sell the land. He entrusted the task of selling the land with Joshy Varghese and Joji Vargese. Joshy Varghese and B.A. No. 4392/ 2009 2 Joji Varghese, in collusion with the officials of the Kerala Financial Corporation, created documents to show that the property in question was mortgaged to the Kerala Financial Corporation. It is alleged by the petitioners that some other person impersonated the 1st petitioner before the Kerala Financial Corporation and forged the signature of the first petitioner. The first petitioner came to know of the aforesaid activities only when he received notice from the Kerala Financial Corporation for recovery of the amount. The first petitioner filed W.P(C) No.20345/2005, challenging the recovery proceedings. In that Writ Petition, this Court directed the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Department to conduct an enquiry in respect of the impersonation and fraud. An enquiry was conducted and Annexure I report was filed before this Court. Annexure I report shows that the officials of the Kerala Financial Corporation abused their official position as Public Servants and committed Criminal misconduct by sanctioning a loan of Rs.44 lakhs on the basis of the application of Joshy Varhese presented with the help of his brother Joji Varghese using the documents of the property owned by the first petitioner, namely, Muhammed Iqbal. It is also stated that M.J. Jose impersonated Muhammed Iqubal. B.A. No. 4392/ 2009 3 6. The first petitioner also submitted that on 15/12/2007, 18/6/2008 and 15/12/2008, agreements were executed between the first petitioner and the defacto complainant, namely Sabu, by which, the property in question was agreed to be sold to Sabu. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the agreements dated 18/6/2008 and 15/12/2008 refer to the liability to the Kerala Financial Corporation. It is also pointed out that the defacto complainant has filed a suit for mandatory injunction directing the first petitioner to clear all liability due to the Kerala Financial Corporation. The suit was filed on 1/4/2009 as O.S. No.65/2009 before the Sub Court, Kattapana. After the suit was filed, on 13/7/2009, Annexure B agreement was executed between the first petitioner and the defacto complainant in respect of another property. According to the first petitioner, he was forced and coerced to sign the agreement dated 13/7/2009 at the instance of DYSP. The allegation in the present case is that the petitioners committed offence in respect of the property involved in O.S. No.65/2009. 7. In the nature of the dispute involved between the parties, I am of the view that it would be unjust to arrest the B.A. No. 4392/ 2009 4 petitioners in connection with the crime. The petitioners are entitled to get anticipatory bail. Accordingly, 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. The Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated above. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm