Vincent Rodrigex Vs. State of Kerala - Court Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY,THE14H DAY OF JULY201423RD ASHADHA, 1936 Bail Appl..No. 5079 of 2014 () ------------------------------- CRIME NO. 174/2013 OF KALADY POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT ---------------------- PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED : ------------------------------------------- VINCENT RODRIGEX, AGED49YEARS S/O.ALBY, KOLLAMVELIYAKATH HOUSE, PADIYOOR KARA PADIYOOR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK THRISSUR DISTRICT, NOW RESIDING AT KADUKUTTY KARA CHALAKKUDY. BY ADVS.SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE SRI.P.PRIJITH SRI.THOMAS P. KURUVILLA RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT : ---------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. (CRIME NO.174 OF2013OF KALADY POLICE STATION ERNAKULAM DISTRICT). BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. LALIZA THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON1407-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Mn THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J ====================== B.A No.5079 of 2014 ====================== Dated this the 14th day of July, 2014 ORDER

Petitioner is the second accused in Crime No.174 of 2013 of Kalady Police Station for the offences punishable under Secs.415, 417, 420, 468 and 120(b) r/w Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code, apprehends arrest and has filed this application.

2. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application. It is submitted that the first accused subscribed to three chitties started by the de facto complainant and prized the same. The first accused received the amount and executed agreement for repayment of the amount due to the de facto complainant with the petitioner and another as the guarantors. Later it was revealed that the petitioner described himself as husband of first accused but put a different signature to cheat the de facto complainant and collected money B.A No.5079 of 2014 2 from the de facto complainant along with other accused.

3. Learned Senior Advocate submits that the allegations are not true. It is submitted that the company filed O.S No.540 of 2008 and obtained an ex parte decree against the first accused and the guarantors. The petitioner had never signed the chitty agreement and he was not properly described in the suit as well. He never got notice in the suit. On those grounds he resisted the execution petition. Thereafter, the present complaint is filed. It is submitted that the even the allegation made by de facato complainant that the petitioner put a different signature, if correct, would not amount to the offence of forgery.

4. I am not going to the nature of forgery allegedly committed by the petitioner. Interrogation of the petitioner is required. Moreover, his presence is required to collect specimen B.A No.5079 of 2014 3 signature/handwriting etc. I am inclined to think that custodial interrogation of petitioner is not required. Hence I am inclined to grant relief but subject to conditions and protecting the interest of de facto complainant. The application is allowed as under: i) Petitioner shall surrender before the officer investigating Crime No.174/2013 of Kalady Police Station on 18.07.2014 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 petitioner on other day/days and time as may be specified by him which the petitioner shall comply. iii) Petitioner shall co-operate with investigation of the case. iv) In case arrest of the petitioner is recorded, he shall be produced before the jurisdictional magistrate the same day. B.A No.5079 of 2014 4 v) On such production the petitioner shall be released on bail (if not required to be detained otherwise) on his executing bond for `25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) with two sureties 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 the petitioner. b) Petitioner shall, within two weeks from the date of execution of bail bond submit his salary certificate in the court where the decree in O.S No.540/2008 is being executed. c) Petitioner shall file affidavit in the court where the decree in O.S No540/2008 is being executed detailing the immovable properties if any he has within two weeks from the date of execution of bail bond as aforesaid. (It is made clear that the submission of salary certificate and filing of affidavit before the execution B.A No.5079 of 2014 5 court as aforesaid would be subject to the contention the petitioner has raised in that proceeding. d) Petitioner shall report to the Investigating officer as and when required for interrogation at all reasonable time and place. e) Petitioner shall not get involved in any other case during the period of this bail. f) Petitioner shall not intimidate or influence the witnesses in the case. vi) In case the petitioner violates any of condition Nos.(b) to (f) it is open to the investigating officer to move the learned magistrate for cancellation of the bail granted hereby as held in P.K.Shaji Vs State of Kerala (AIR2006SC100. Sd/- THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE vdv //True copy// P.Ato Judge