IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2008 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4631 of 2008() ------------------------- CRL.M.C.NO.1830/2008 OF SESSIONS COURT, TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER(S): DEFACTO COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------- SALIM, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.LATE MOHAMMED KASIM, KOTTAPURATHU MULLASSERY VEEDU, KARIPOOR, NEDUMANGADU, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.K.SATHEESH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): STATE, ACCUSED ----------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THAJUDIN, TAHIR MANZIL, MANJA, NEDUMANGAD, TRIVANDRUM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZER THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.4631 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of December 2008 O R D E R The petitioner is the de facto complainant in a crime registered alleging offences punishable inter alia under Sections 468 and 471 I.P.C. The petitioner/ de facto complainant had sold an item of property to the 1st accused. That document was executed in 2005. The petitioner in 2008 realised that certain unauthorised corrections have been made in the original document available with the 1st accused. He also came to know that the corresponding alterations were made in the registration copy filed in the office of the Registrar. Thus, according to him, a registered document has been tampered with. The petitioner accordingly filed a complaint before the learned Magistrate which was referred to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Crime has been registered. Investigation is in progress. The 1st accused, the assignee, went before the learned Sessions Judge and claimed anticipatory bail. By Annexure IV order, anticipatory bail was granted subject to appropriate and strict conditions by the learned Sessions Judge. It is submitted at the Crl.M.C.No.4631/08 2 Bar that the conditions have been complied with. The 1st accused had later appeared before the learned Magistrate and has already been enlarged on bail. 2. The petitioner/de facto complainant has come to this court complaining about the grant of anticipatory bail to the 1st accused by the learned Sessions Judge. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Sessions Judge has not alertly adverted to the relevant circumstances. The gravity of the offence has been completely overlooked by the learned Sessions Judge. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that custodial interrogation was absolutely necessary in the facts and circumstances of this case as the original document in which also alterations were made is now being suppressed by the 1st accused. He must have been interrogated in custody and attempt must have been made to trace the original document. It is, in these circumstances, prays that anticipatory bail granted to the 1st accused may be cancelled. 3. At the stage of admission, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, notice was ordered to the first respondent. Notice was not ordered to the 2nd respondent that is Crl.M.C.No.4631/08 3 the 1st accused. The learned Public Prosecutor was requested to take instructions as to whether the State/Police have any objection against the grant of anticipatory bail and whether the State/Police supports the prayer of the de facto complainant/ petitioner for cancellation of bail. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor, after taking instructions, submits that the investigation has only commenced. According to the prosecution, it is not necessary to cancel the order of anticipatory bail granted in favour of the second respondent/1st accused. The second respondent has complied with the conditions of the anticipatory bail order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Public Prosecutor accepts that the allegation is serious. The crux of the allegations is that the original of the registered document available with the 1st accused has been altered to the prejudice of the petitioner herein. There is a further allegation that the filing copy maintained in the Registrar's office has also been altered. The learned Public Prosecutor further submits that for a proper investigation, it is not felt that the custodial interrogation of the second respondent is absolutely essential. The conditions Crl.M.C.No.4631/08 4 imposed are sufficient. The investigating officer will now have to ascertain whether the alterations were there in the original or they have been introduced subsequently and if so, by whom and for what purpose. For a proper investigation in the case, the present conditions imposed are sufficient and the State does not support the prayer for cancellation of anticipatory bail, submits the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. I have considered all the relevant circumstances. Cancellation of bail is an exceptional remedy which a criminal court shall contemplate. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I am unable to agree that the arrest and custodial interrogation of the 1st accused is absolutely essential for a proper and efficient conduct of the investigation. I take note of the stand taken by the learned Public Prosecutor. I am, in these circumstances, not satisfied that the grant of anticipatory bail to the 1st accused, that is the second respondent deserves to be cancelled. 6. This Crl.M.C is accordingly dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge Crl.M.C.No.4631/08 5 Crl.M.C.No.4631/08 6 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.C.No. of 2008 ORDER 09/07/2008