Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE30H DAY OF SEPTEMBER20138TH ASWINA, 1935 Bail Appl..No. 4822 of 2013 () ------------------------------- CRIME NO. 610/2013 OF MALAMPUZHA POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT ----- PETITIONERS/ACCUSED1TO5: --------------------------- 1. BALAKRISHNAN, S/O.LATE RAMANEZHUTHACHAN, PADALEDATH HOUSE, MULAMKUNNATHU KAVU, KILLANUR VILLAGE, TRISSUR TALUK AND DISTRICT.
2. SAROJINI, AGED53YEARS, W/O.CHANDRAN, KOLAZHI DESOM, KOLAZHI VILLAGE, TRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 010.
3. SOSAMMA, AGED57YEARS W/O.LATE JACOB MATHEW, 12/1054 MANNUTHY DESOM OLLUKARA VILLAGE, TRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680655.
4. ARIENE JACOB D/O.LATE JACOB MATHEW, 12/1054 MANNUTHY DESOM OLLUKARA VILLAGE, TRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680655.
5. MERIENE JACOB, AGED23YEARS D/O.LATE JACOB MATHEW, 12/1054 MANNUTHY DESOM OLLUKARA VILLAGE, TRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680655. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT : ---------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, REPRESENTING SI OF POLICE MALAMPUZHA POLICE STATION IN CRIME NO.610/2013. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SREEJITH THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON3009-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: BP THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J --------------------------------------------- B.A No.4822 of 2013 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of September, 2013 ORDER
The petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 5, in Crime No.610 of 2013 of the Malampuzha Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 465, 468 and 471 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Case is that the petitioners executed a sale deed on 12.6.2012 and sold property (allegedly) owned by one Kochumery and thus forged document. The petitioners say that the property dealt with by the aforesaid document belongs to them and that Kochumery has filed O.S.No.493/2011 raising a boundary dispute.
3. Learned counsel for the defacto complainant submits that the Village Officer concerned had, based on the forged document issued a possession certificate which also is forged.
4. Learned counsel submits that the allegations are B.A No.4822 of 2013 2 false and that at any rate, it is also only a civil dispute concerning title and possession of the property covered by the impugned document which is pending consideration before the civil court.
5. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor also.
6. Having regard to the nature of allegations made and other relevant circumstances, I am inclined to grant time to the petitioners to approach the regular court and seek regular bail subject to conditions. Resultantly, this petition is disposed of as under. i) The petitioners are granted three weeks time from this day to appear before the jurisdictional Magistrate and seek regular bail. ii) The 1st petitioner shall report to the officer investigating the case on all Saturdays between 10 am and 12 pm and on other days as directed by that officer for interrogation during the said period of three weeks. iii) Petitioners 2 to 5 shall report to the officer investigating the case during the said period of three weeks in case so directed, at all reasonable time and places, for interrogation. iv) Petitioners shall, while applying for bail give intimation to the Assistant Public Prosecutor at B.A No.4822 of 2013 3 least two working days in advance. v) In case custodial interrogation of any of the petitioners is required, it is open to the investigating officer to move appropriate application before the appropriate Magistrate. vi) It is open to the petitioners to address their arguments before the Learned Magistrate that no offence of forgery is involved on the allegations made in the complaint. vii) The learned Magistrate shall dispose of the application (s) referred to above, as early as possible, having regard to the facts of the case. THOMAS P. JOSEPH JUDGE ab