Kerala High Court
Crime No.''Unknown'' Of Thrissur East ... vs By Advs.Sri.S.Rajeev on 12 November, 2013
Author: Thomas P.Joseph
Bench: Thomas P.Joseph
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH
SUNDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/26TH KARTHIKA, 1935
Bail Appl..No. 4915 of 2013 ()
-----------------------------------------
CRIME NO.''UNKNOWN'' OF THRISSUR EAST POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
........
PETITIONER
--------------------
SAJEEV RAGHAVAN, S/O.RAGHAVAN, AGED 38 YEARS
ANAKKALLUNKAL HOUSE, VYNTHALA
PALAYAMPARAMBU P.O THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.S.RAJEEV
SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN
RESPONDENTS/STATE
----------------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM-682 031 (CRIME
NO.'UNKNOWN' OF THRISSUR EAST POLICE STATION
THRISSUR DISTRICT)
2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER
THRISSUR EAST POLICE STATION
THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680005
(CRIME NO.'UNKNOWN' OF THRISSUR EAST POLICE STATION
THRISSUR DISTRICT)
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.LALIZA
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17-11-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
tss
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J
---------------------------------------
B.A.No.4915 of 2013
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of November, 2013
ORDER
Petitioner is the accused, in Crime No.67 of 2013 of the Thrissur East Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 463, and 468 of the Indian Penal Code, apprehends arrest and has filed this application.
2. Learned Public Prosecutor, while opposing the application has submitted that the petitioner approached the defacto complainant who is abroad with an offer to purchase property for him and obtained photocopy of documents. The petitioner is said to have forged documents. It is also said that the petitioner collected Rs.44,70,000/- from the brother of the defacto complainant.
3. Learned counsel submitted that the defacto complainant wanted the petitioner to purchase property for him and offered to purchase the property at the rate of Rs.13,350/- per cent whatever be the cost at which the petitioner purchased the property and an agreement was to be executed (Annexure-I) but, the defacto complainant did not B.A.No.4915 of 2013 2 sign it. According to the learned counsel, relatives of the defacto complainant made him believe that by direct purchase the defacto complainant can make profit. Thereafter, the defacto complainant withdrew from the agreement.
4. I am inclined to think, having regard to the circumstances that the request for anticipatory bail cannot be allowed since the question whether, there is forgery as alleged by the defacto complainant is required to be looked into. Petitioner has to surrender the before the investigating officer. On such surrender the investigating officer shall question the petitioner. It is open to the investigating officer to collect specimen handwriting/signature of the petitioner. After interrogation is over, petitioner shall be produced before the jurisdictional magistrate as early as possible where with intimation given to the Assistant Public Prosecutor concerned at least three working days in advance it is open to the petitioner to move application for bail. In case custody of the petitioner is required, investigating officer also can make request for that, before the learned magistrate. Learned magistrate shall dispose of the application(s) as early as possible having regard to the B.A.No.4915 of 2013 3 facts of the case.
Application is disposed of with the above directions.
Sd/-
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE AS /True Copy/ P.A.to Judge