IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH AUGUST 2011 / 19TH SRAVANA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 6326 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.337/2009 OF KUNNATHUNADU POLICE STATION ERNAKULAM DISTRICT PETITIONER :ACCUSED -------------------- C.P.VARGHESE, S/O.PAULOSE, AGED 60 YEARS, CHEATTIARIKAL HOUSE, VEMBILIKKARA, KUMARAPURAM, ALWAYE. BY ADV. SRI.PAUL K.VARGHESE RESPONDENT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUNNATHUNAD POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.MANU THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Bail Appln.No.6326 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of August, 2011 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Petitioner is accused No.1 in Crime No.337 of 2009 of Kunnathunadu Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is the following:- Accused No.2 promised the de facto complainant that he would get the necessary permission to fill up the land from the authorities concerned. Accused No.2 directed the de facto complainant to meet accused No.1 in that regard. On 27/04/2007, the de facto complainant met accused No.1 and as demanded by accused No.1, a sum of `25,000/- was given as advance by the de facto complainant. On 16/05/2007, accused No.1 handed over an order issued by the Mining and Geology Department as if that was the permission was granted by the authority to fill up the land. Accused No.1 received another sum of `85,000/- from the de facto complainant. Bail Appln.No.6326/2011 : 2 : 4. After a lapse of 1 or 2 years, when the land was filled up, reports came in the media that unauthorised filling of land took place. The de facto complainant was under the belief that the authorities concerned had granted permission. Later, on realising that the document handed over to him was a forged document, the de facto complainant stated the real facts before the police. Investigation revealed that the document which was handed over by the first accused to the de facto complainant is a forged document. 5. The Investigating Officer originally filed a refer report before the court stating that no case was made out. Later, Rural S.P., Aluva, on finding that the investigation was perfunctory, directed the C.I. of Police, Kunnathunadu to make investigation with the permission of the court. Necessary permission was granted by the court and the investigation is being held. It is submitted by learned Public Prosecutor that the complicity of the accused is revealed in the investigation. The petitioner apprehends arrest and he has filed this application for anticipatory bail. 6. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are grave in nature. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to get the Bail Appln.No.6326/2011 : 3 : discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The matter requires investigation. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be required in the case. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, it would adversely affect the proper and smooth investigation of the case. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE skj