Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JULY 2013 26TH ASHADHA, 1935 Bail Appl..No. 1777 of 2013 (C) ------------------------------------------- [F.I.R. NO. 57/2013 DTD. 12-1-2013 OF PALA POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT] ........... PETITIONER: ------------------- SHEEBA JUSTIN, AGED 4 YEARS, KUTTIYANI HOUSE, VALLIPLACKAL, KADAVOR ROAD, EDAPADDY, PIN”
578. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.SEBASTIAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PALA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN”
031.
2. JOY JOSEPH, VADAKKEKUTTIYANIYIL, BHARANANGANAM P.O., KOTTAYAM (DT), PIN:
686. 578. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. SHIBU JOSEPH. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-07-2013, ALONG WITH B.A. NO.2313/2013 ,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Prv. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
----------------------------------------------- B.A Nos.1777 & 2313 of 2013 ------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of July, 2013 ORDER Petitioners in the above two petitions are spouses and they are proceeded as among the accused persons in Crime No.57 of 2013 of Pala Police Station registered for offences punishable under Sections 406, 417, 420, 468 and 471 r/w 120B of Indian Penal Code. Petitioner in B.A No.2313 of 2013 is the first accused, and petitioner in B.A No.1777 of 2013 is second accused in the crime. Petitioners seek pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. The above crime was registered on a complaint filed by the brother of petitioner in B.A No.2313 of 2013 before the Sub Inspector of Police, Pala alleging that his power of attorney, petitioner referred to above, defrauded him executing sale deeds over his immovable properties in B.A Nos.1777&2313/2013 2 favour of the other petitioner, his wife, and also in not paying value or consideration of the properties covered by the sale deed to him. Investigation of the crime registered on such complaint is now pending investigation, and during the course of which some others have also been implicated as co-accused with petitioners. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner in B.A No.2313 of 2013 relying on Annexure D judgment in a suit instituted by de facto complainant contended that the civil court has already entered a finding that the case canvassed by de facto complainant is not sustainable or true to facts. De facto complainant in such suit has applied for a declaration that the sale deeds executed by petitioner in favour of his wife are null and void, and, also for a prohibitory injunction. His suit after trial was dismissed, is the submission of counsel. However, it is conceded that an appeal preferred by de facto complainant, B.A Nos.1777&2313/2013 3 plaintiff in that suit, after being admitted and taken on file, is pending before this court. Petitioner is prepared to co-operate with investigation of the crime and his arrest and custodial interrogation is not essential, is the further submission of counsel to extend him the discretionary relief canvassed of. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner in B.A No.1777 of 2013, the recipent of sale deeds executed by her husband, petitioner in other petition, also seeks the discretionary relief of pre-arrest bail stating that her arrest and custodial interrogation is not required for completing investigation of the crime. Both petitions are opposed by learned Public Prosecutor contending that the materials gathered by investigating agency disclose complicity of petitioners in the grave offences imputed of and, as such, their custodial interrogation is necessary for a fair investigation of the crime. B.A Nos.1777&2313/201”
3. After hearing the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented in the case, I find, this is not a fit case where petitioners can be extended pre-arrest bail. Petitioners have to surrender before the Investigating Officer and co-operate with investigation of the crime. On the allegations raised in the crime it cannot be stated that it is a pure and simple civil dispute. Whether any fraud was committed under the authority given in the power of attorney executed by complainant to his brother is a matter that can be decided only after a full and thorough investigation of the crime. When that be the case, I find, pre-arrest bail cannot be extended to petitioners, both of them. However, there will be a direction enabling them to appear before the Investigating Officer and co-operate with investigation of the crime while declining them pre-arrest bail. B.A Nos.1777&2313/2013 5 In case petitioners appear before the Investigating Officer at 10:00 a.m on 22.07.2013, after their interrogation, in the event of their arrest in the crime, they shall be produced before the Magistrate of competent jurisdiction without delay. On such production, application for bail, if any, moved by petitioners with advance notice to the Assistant Public prosecutor, shall be considered by the Magistrate, expeditiously, and disposed on its merits, in accordance with law. In default of petitioners to appear on the date and time fixed as above before the Investigating Officer, this order shall cease to have any effect. Petition is disposed of. vdv S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE