Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE3D DAY OF APRIL201413TH CHAITHRA, 1936 Bail Appl..No. 2335 of 2014 ------------------------------- CRIME NO. 266/2014 OF THALIPARAMBA POLICE STATION , KANNUR .. PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NOS. 1 & 2: ----------------------------------------------------------- 1. KEEMATTATHIL APPACHAN ALIAS AUGUSTHI, AGED65YEARS, RESIDING AT UPSTAIR OF BADARIYA HOTEL, TALIPARAMBA.
2. MULLOOKKARAN RAGHAVAN, AGED50YEARS, RESIDING AT UPSTAIR OF BADARIYA HOTEL, TALIPARAMBA. BY ADV. SRI.MAHESH V. RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. LALIZA THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON0304-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J --------------------------------------- B.A.No.2335 of 2014 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of April, 2014 ORDER
Petitioners are accused 1 and 2 in Crime No.266 of 2014 of the Thaliparamba Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 465 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, apprehend arrest and have filed the application.
2. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the de facto complainant purchased the property of one Baby and he was assured right of access through the adjacent property. Later, an agreement was handed over to the de facto complainant as if through the adjacent property, he is provided right of access. It was revealed that the said agreement was forged. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that Rs.2 lakhs was collected by the petitioners and others for providing right of access as above said.
3. The learned counsel has submitted that the petitioners are only brokers who negotiated the sale between the de facto complainant and Baby and are not parties to the alleged agreement. It happened that the first petitioner is a witness to the agreement in question. It is also submitted that the agreement does not say that Rs.2 lakhs was received from B.A.No.2335 of 2014 2 the de facto complainant by anybody.
4. Having heard both sides, I am inclined to think that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required. At the same time they are to be interrogated by the Police. In the circumstances, I am inclined grant relief to the petitioners but subject to conditions so that investigation is not affected. Application is disposed of as under: (i) Petitioners shall surrender before the Officer investigating Crime No.266 of 2014 of the Thaliparamba Police Station on 11.04.2014 at 10 a.m for interrogation. (ii) In case interrogation is not completed that day, it is open to the officer concerned to direct presence of the petitioners on other day/days and time as may be specified by him which the petitioners shall comply. (iii) Petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation of the case. It is open to the investigating officer to collect specimen handwriting/signature etc. from the petitioners if found necessary. (iv) In case the petitioners are arrested, they shall be produced before the jurisdictional magistrate the same day. (v) On such production, the petitioners shall be released on bail (if not required to be detained otherwise) on their executing bond for Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand B.A.No.2335 of 2014 3 only) each with two sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned magistrate and subject to the following conditions: (a) One of the sureties shall be a close relative of any of the petitioners. (b) Petitioners shall report to the officer investigating the case on every alternate Saturday between 10.00 a.m and 12.00 p.m for a period of two months or until filing of the final report whichever is earlier. (c) Petitioners shall report to the officer investigating the case as and when required for interrogation. (d) Petitioners shall not get involved in any offence during the period of this bail. (e) Petitioners shall not intimidate or influence the witnesses. (vi) It is made clear that in case any of condition Nos. (b) to (e) is violated, it is open to the Investigating Officer to seek cancellation of the bail granted hereby by moving application before the learned magistrate as held in P.K. Shaji V. State of Kerala (AIR2006Supreme Court 100). Sd/- THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. AS /True Copy/ P.A. to Judge