Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE22D DAY OF JULY201431ST ASHADHA, 1936 Bail Appl..No. 5281 of 2014 ------------------------------- CRIME NO. 685/2014 OF PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM ...... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------ K.N. MOHANAN, AGED48YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAN KUTTY,ATHIRA BHAVAN, PUNNOORCODE KARA, PAZHAMTHOTTAM(PO) 683 565, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA RESPONDENT: ---------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY S.IOF POLICE, PALARIVATTOM THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.DHANESH MATHEW MANJOORAN THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON2207-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss V.K.MOHANAN, J.
---------------------------------------- B.A.No. 5281 of 2014 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2014 ORDER
The petitioner, who is an accused in Crime No.685 of 2014 of Palarivattom Police Station, in which the offences alleged are under Sections 380,465,468 and 471 of I.P.C., seeks pre-arrest bail.
2. The prosecution case is that one Rajani preferred a complaint i.e., CMP No.1393 of 2014 on 28.3.2014 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ernakulam, which on transmission under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. and on receiving the same, Crime No.685 of 2014 was registered in the Palarivattom Police Station for the aforesaid offences and according to the allegation in the said complaint and as per the prosecution version, the petitioner herein committed theft of the signed cheque in question from the possession of the de facto complainant and after making necessary endorsement fraudulently in the said cheque, the petitioner presented the same B.A. No. 5281 of 2014 :-2-: before the court in terms of the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act and thus, S.T.No.651 of 2013 was instituted in the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kolencherry for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act against the de facto complainant in the present case. According to the petitioner, the complaint in the present case and crime were registered when the petitioner preferred a private complaint against the de facto complainant for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act and thus, according to the petitioner, he is entitled to get pre-arrest bail.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. I have already referred the prosecution allegation as well as the case of the petitioner.
5. The entire allegation against the petitioner is based upon the cheque in question in S.T.No.651 of 2013. According to me, for the purpose of investigation connected with the above document, the B.A. No. 5281 of 2014 :-3-: custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be necessary, especially considering the fact that the said cheque is available in the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kolencherry in S.T.No.651 of 2013. For finalising the investigation in the present crime, if the presence of the petitioner is required, by providing appropriate condition to that effect, according to me, the petitioner can be given anticipatory bail.
6. In the result, this petition is allowed with a direction that in case the petitioner is arrested in Crime No.685 of 2014 of Palarivattom Police Station, he shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for `50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the investigating officer in the above crime and subject to the following conditions:- (i) In case the petitioner is arrested and released as per the above direction, he is directed to report before the Investigating Officer at 11 a.m. in B.A. No. 5281 of 2014 :-4-: Crime No.685 of 2014 once on Tuesday in every fortnight. (ii) The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation in the above crime. (iii) The petitioner shall not interfere with the investigation or shall not make any attempt to influence the witnesses or to tamper the evidence. (iv) Besides reporting before the investigating officer as directed above, as and when required by the investigating officer, the petitioner shall report before the investigating officer. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge MBS/ B.A. No. 5281 of 2014 :-5-: