IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2010 / 17TH ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 2340 of 2010() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO.1718/2009 OF NJARAKKAL POLICE STATION) PETITIONER/5TH ACCUSED --------------------------------------- SALIMKUMAR.P.K., AGED 39, S/O.P.M.KESAVAN, PUNNAKKATTUTHARA, PANAMBUKADU, VALLARPADOM.P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.A.MOHAMMED SHAH SRI.P.H.SHAJAHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NJARAKKAL POLICE STATION, NJARAKKAL, ERNAKUALM DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/07/2010, ALONG WITH BA NO. 3337 OF 2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THEFOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J ----------------------- B.A Nos.2340 AND 3337 OF 2010 -------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of July 2010 ORDER This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 120(B), 406, 420 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(IV) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. According to prosecution, de facto complainant pledged her property having an extent of six cents in a Service Co-operative Bank. An amount of Rs.1,39,000/- was due from de facto complainant to the bank. While so, accused numbers 4 to 6 approached de facto complainant and made representations to her that they will make arrangements to pay off the amount to the bank and secure another loan for purchase of property. Second accused paid the money which was due from de facto complainant to the Service Co-operative Bank and redeemed the documents belonging to de facto complainant. 3. Thereafter, seventh and eighth accused approached nineth accused who is a bank manager and a purchase loan was sanctioned by nineth accused. An account was caused to be opened in the name of de facto complainant in the said bank. Rs.20,00,000/- was deposited in the account of de facto complainant and cheque book was also issued to de facto complainant. Few signed cheque leaves were obtained fraudelently B.A Nos.2340 AND 3337 OF 2010 2 by the accused from de facto complainant and thereafter, without knowledge of de facto complainant, whole amount in the account was withdrawn by the accused. In the mean time, de facto complainant was also made to assign the property in favour of first accused and a document was executed in his favour by de facto complainant, thereby all the accused committed various offences alleged. 4. Learned counsel for fifth accused submitted that he has nothing to do with the alleged offences. He is a relative of de facto complainant and he is working in Port Trust. He had gone with her for registration of the sale deed and signed as witness. He had gone to second accused's office when Rs.33,000/- was paid by de facto complainant to second accused. A receipt was issued by second accused to de facto complainant. All other allegations made against fifth accused are absolutely false. It is also pointed out that fifth accused himself is a member of Scheduled Caste and hence, offence under the SC/ST(PA) Act will not lie against him. It is also submitted that as per allegations in the complaint, it was the first and fourth accused who had gone to de facto complainant's house and made false representations. Even as per the allegations made, petitioner was present only at the time of registration of sale deed and no offence will be made against fifth accused, it is submitted. 5. Learned counsel for fourth accused submitted that fourth accused was involved in various other crimes also of the similar B.A Nos.2340 AND 3337 OF 2010 3 nature and he was remanded by the court after arrest. Petitioner was implicated in this case while he was in judicial custody. But at that time no request was made for recording his arrest. Fourth accused is also a member of Scheduled Caste and no offence under SC/ST(PA) Act will be attracted. It is also submitted that in respect of petitioner's father's property, in which petitioner is residing, was also sold in the same manner, as alleged in this case, and petitioner himself was a victim, it is submitted. 6. These petitions are strongly opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that as per the materials in the case diary, petitioners were present during all the transactions. They had allegedly made false representations to de facto complainant. They were also present at the time when the account was opened in the bank and assignment deed was registered. They were also present in the office of second accused, when an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- was paid to de facto complainant. This is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Both accused are involved in other cases of similar nature and their arrest and custodial interrogation are necessary for ascertaining their complicity in the offence. 7. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner had filed an application for anticipatory bail as B.A No. 6124/2009 and it was dismissed on 26/10/2009 by this court in and at that time, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioner is not an accused B.A Nos.2340 AND 3337 OF 2010 4 in crime number 840/2009 of Mulakodu police station and police has no intention to arrest him. Petitioner is not involved in any other crime, it is submitted. 8. On hearing both sides, considering the serious nature of the allegations made, I do not think that this is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. On the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, I find that petitioner's custodial interrogation will be required for an effective investigation. The crime was registered as early as on 18/11/2009. Petitioners are bound to surrender before the Investigating Officer without any delay and co-operate with investigation. Hence, the following order is passed. (1) Petitioners shall surrender before the Investigating Officer without any delay and co-operate with investigation. (2) Whether they surrendered or not, police is at liberty to arrest them in accordance with law. (3) No further application for anticipatory bail will be entertained by this court in this crime hereafter. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vdv