IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 19TH JULY 2011 / 28TH ASHADHA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 5609 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.1221/2011 OF CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.7 : ---------------------------------- ADV.M.S.SAJEEV KUMAR, AGED 40, S/O.M.S.SREEDHARAN, 59/993, EASWARA IYER ROAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.UDAYABHANU SRI.P.B.DILRAJ RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE S.I.OF POLICE, CENTRAL POLICE STATION, (CRIME 1221/2011) REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A.No.5609 of 2011 --------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of July, 2011 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.7 in Crime No.1221 of 2011 of Central Police Station, Ernakulam. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 406, 420 and 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The de facto complainant filed a complaint before the Magistrate's Court and it was forwarded to the police under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The offences alleged in the complaint are the following : Sections 120B, 191, 192, 196, 198, 209, 403, 409, 405, 406, 420, 423, 463, 468, 471, 474, 467 and 506(ii) read with Section 34 of the Indian BA 5609/2011 2 Penal Code. Though the crime was registered for the aforesaid offences originally, on investigation, it was found that only the offences under Sections 406, 420 and 120(B) read with Section 34 are made out. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner read out the relevant portion in the complaint. The specific allegation against the petitioner is that he prepared a power of attorney which was subsequently registered. The existence of the registered power of attorney is not in dispute. The question whether the other accused committed the offence is not relevant in considering whether the petitioner, as an Advocate, was involved in the offence only on the ground that he prepared a power of attorney. It is submitted that as an Advocate, it was the duty of the petitioner to give advice to the litigant and to draft the documents, if necessary. The allegations would at best indicate that the petitioner prepared a power of attorney which was subsequently registered. 5. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor also. The learned BA 5609/2011 3 Public Prosecutor could not point out any specific allegation against the petitioner pointing out to the offences under Sections 406, 420 or 120B of the Indian Penal Code. 6. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence and other circumstances, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. There will be a direction that in the event of arrest of the petitioner, the officer in charge of the police station shall release him on bail on his executing bond for ` 10,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions: A) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required . B) The petitioner shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence . C) The petitioner shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail; BA 5609/2011 4 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 csl