Kerala High Court
Shan vs State Of Kerala
Author: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
Bench: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 22ND PHALGUNA, 1939
Bail Appl..No. 103 of 2018
----------------
(CRIME NO.1799/2017 OF CHIRAYINKEEZHU POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM)
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 & 2:
1. SHAN, AGED 29 YEARS,
S/O. SHUKKUR,
VELIKKAKKATH VALIYAVILA VEEDU,
KATTUMURAKKAL, CHIRAYINKIL,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
2. NISSAM, AGED 28 YEARS,
S/O. ARIFA, VELIKKAKKATH VALIYAVILA VEEDU,
KATTUMURAKKAL, CHIRAYINKIL,
THIRUVANATHAPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV.SRI.P.ANOOP (MULAVANA)
RESPONDENT(S):
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
* ADDITIONAL 2ND RESPONDENT IMPLEADED:
2. NIZAR, SO/. SHAHUL HAMEED,
VELIKKAKATH VEEDU KATTUMURAKKAL,
KIZHUVILAM VILLAGE, Now RESIDING AT BISMI,
MRA-241-A, VANCHIYOOR P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
* (ADDITIONAL 2ND RESPONDENT IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
6.2.2018 IN CRL.M.A. NO.1015 OF 2018 IN B.A. NO.103/2018.)
ADDL.R2 BY ADVS. SRI.K.SIJU
SMT.S.SEETHA
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. AJITH MURALI
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-03-2018,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., J
==================
B.A. No. 103 of 2018
==================
Dated this the 13th day of March, 2018
ORDER
1. This petition is filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.
2. The petitioners herein are the accused Nos.1 & 2 in Crime No.1799 of 2017 of the Chirayinkil Police Station, registered under Sections 468, 471 and 420 r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The de facto complainant is a near relative of the petitioners. A suit was instituted by the 1 st petitioner before the Munsiff Court, Attingal for realisation of a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- together with interest from the de facto complainant. The suit document is a promissory note purported to have been executed by the de facto complainant in favor of the 1 st petitioner. An attachment before judgement was also obtained by the 1 st petitioner in the suit. Alleging that the promissory note was forged and that the same was brought into existence to deprive the complainant of his immovable property, the law was set in motion .
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted BA.103/18 -:2:- that money was actually borrowed and the registration of the crime is nothing but an attempt to set up a defence in the suit.
5. The de facto complainant was impleaded as additional 2 nd respondent. The learned counsel has opposed the prayer .It is submitted that steps have been taken for sending the note to a handwriting expert.
6. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor.
7. I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the case diary.
8. The dispute revolves around a promissory note allegedly executed by the de facto complainant in favour of the petitioner herein. The said document has been sent to the expert. The veracity of the case set up by the parties will be revealed only when the report is received. Having gone through the materials on record the custodial interrogation of the petitioners does not appear to be necessitous for an effective investigation.
In the result, this petition will stand allowed. The petitioners are directed to appear before the investigating officer within ten days from today and shall undergo BA.103/18 -:3:- interrogation. Thereafter, if they are proposed to be arrested, they shall be released on bail on their executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum. The above order shall be subject to the following conditions:
i) The petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Saturdays between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m., for one month or till final report is filed, whichever is earlier.
ii) The petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer.
iii) The petitioners shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.
iv) The petitioners shall not leave the country without obtaining the previous permission of the court having jurisdiction.
In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.
Sd/-
Raja Vijayaraghavan V., Judge krj.13/3 //true copy// P.A. To Judge