IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 3RD NOVEMBER 2009 / 12TH KARTHIKA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 5644 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.466/2009 OF KOTTAYAM WEST POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM .................... APPLICANTS/ACCUSED : ---------------------------------- 1. RAJU.C.D., S/O. DIVAKARAN, AGED 42 YEARS, CHIRACKAL HOUSE, ATTAPPALAM KARA, KUMILY, IDUKKI DIST. 2. DEEPA RAJU, W/O. RAJU.C.D., AGED 40 YEARS CHIRACKAL HOUSE ATTAPPALAM KARA, KUMILY, IDUKKI DIST. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.THOMAS J.ANAKKALLUNKAL RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REP. THE S.I. OF POLICE KOTTAYAM WEST POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.5644 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2009 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.466 of 2009 of Kottayam West Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 406, 420, 468, 471, 474 and 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The gist of the prosecution case is the following: The first petitioner purchased a tempo traveller in 2006 with the financial assistance of Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd. It would appear that a hire purchase agreement was executed between the first petitioner and the company. It would also appear that amounts were due to the financier. The allegation is that the petitioners forged documents to make it appear that the entire liability to Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd. was discharged. On the basis of those forged documents, the endorsement on the registration certificate showing the hire BA No.5644/2009 2 purchase transaction was got changed by the petitioners. Thereafter, it is alleged that they hypothecated the vehicle to another financier and got money. The second petitioner is the wife of the first petitioner. She is a guarantor to the transactions. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that litigations are pending between the first petitioner and the Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd.. 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the offence, I do not think that the first petitioner is entitled to get the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The allegations levelled against him are grave in nature. However, taking into account the fact the second petitioner is a woman and that she is only a guarantor and not the owner of the vehicle, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the second petitioner. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the second petitioner, the officer in charge of the police station shall release her on bail on her executing bond for Rs.15,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction BA No.5644/2009 3 of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions: a) The second petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; b) The second petitioner shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence; c) The second petitioner 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 dismissed in so far as it relates to the first petitioner and it is allowed in so far as it relates to the second petitioner. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl