Kerala High Court
Crime No.49/Cr/08 Cb Cid Ocw Ii vs Jimmichan on 20 July, 2007
Author: M.Sasidharan Nambiar
Bench: M.Sasidharan Nambiar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH 2012/11TH PHALGUNA 1933
Bail Appl..No. 1031 of 2012 ()
------------------------------
IN BA.NO.4208/2007 DATED 20-07-2007
CRIME NO.591 OF 2004 OF THODUPUZHA POLICE STATION
CRIME NO.49/CR/08 CB CID OCW II, IDUKKI
PETITIONER / ACCUSED1 AND 2
---------------------------
1. JIMMICHAN
S/O. LATE MANI IMMANUEL,
KUNNATHEDATHU VARIKKATTU HOUSE,
KARIMANNOOR VILLAGE, CHILAVU KARA, THODUPUZHA.
2. THOMAS IMMANUEL @ JOMY M.VARIKKAT,
S/O. LATE MANI IMMANUEL,
KUNNATHEDATHU VARIKKATTU HOUSE,
KARIMANNOOR VILLAGE, CHILAVU KARA, THODUPUZHA.
BY ADVS.SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE
SRI.M.A.MOHAMMED SIRAJ
SRI.P.PRIJITH
SRI.ANEESH JAMES
SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
----------------------
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.K.RAJEEV
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01-03-2012, ALONG WITH BAIL.APPL.NOS.1042/2012,1043/2012 AND 1126/2012
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
MG
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
-------------------------------------------------------------
B.A.NO. 1126, 1031, 1042 & 1043 OF 2012
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dated 1st March, 2012
ORDER
Petitioners in B.A.1031/2012 are accused 1 and 2 in Crime No.591/2004 and petitioner in B.A.1042/2012 is the third accused in the same crime, being investigated by CBCID, Idukki, registered for the offences under Sections 120 B, 109, 419, 465, 467, 468, 471, 420 and 201 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. Petitioner in B.A.1126/2012 is the third accused in Crime No.100/2005, being investigated by the same CBCID and registered for the offences under Sections 120 B, 109, 419, 465, 467, 468, 471, 420 and 201 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. Petitioners in B.A.1043/2012 B.A.NO. 1126, 1031, 1042 & 1043 OF 2012 2 are accused 3 and 4 in Crime No.597/2006, being investigated by the same CBCID for the offences under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120 B read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. De facto complainant in Crime Nos.591/2004 and 100/2005 is the same Johny, brother of accused 1 and 2. De facto complainant in Crime No.597/2006 is the wife of the said Johny. Allegation in Crime No.100/2005 is that subsequent to the death of mother, accused 1 and 2 in furtherance of their criminal conspiracy, entered into with other accused, created a forged power of attorney and transferred the property, as if Johny has authorized the power of attorney to execute the document and thereby transferred the property in favour of one of the sisters. The prosecution case in Crime No.595/2004 is that B.A.NO. 1126, 1031, 1042 & 1043 OF 2012 3 after the death of the mother, accused 1 and 2 in furtherance of their criminal conspiracy with others, executed power of attorney, as if the de facto complainant, Johny executed it in favour of accused 1 and 2, authorizing to sell the property on his behalf and it was created by impersonation and accused thereby committed the offences. Allegation in Crime No.597/2006 is that accused in furtherance of their criminal conspiracy got the sale deed executed under the name of the de facto complainant by impersonation and thereby committed the offences.
2. Apprehending arrest petitions are filed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure for anticipatory bail. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners pointed out that third accused in Crime No.597/2006 B.A.NO. 1126, 1031, 1042 & 1043 OF 2012 4 had earlier filed B.A.6645/2010, apprehending arrest, and this Court directed him to appear before the Investigating Officer and after interrogation directed the Investigating Officer to produce the petitioner before the learned Magistrate and learned Magistrate was directed to release him on bail and in such circumstances, petitioners also be granted same relief. Learned Senior counsel also pointed out that the investigation is almost over and in such circumstances, there is no necessity for custodial interrogation.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petitions and made available the case diary.
4. On going through the case diary, I do not find that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is necessary and what is necessary is their presence for interrogation and B.A.NO. 1126, 1031, 1042 & 1043 OF 2012 5 investigation. In such circumstances, petitioners are directed to report before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today for interrogation. After completing the interrogation petitioners shall be produced before the learned Magistrate without delay. In that event, petitioners are at liberty to file application for bail. Learned Magistrate to pass appropriate order in accordance with law taking into consideration that third accused in Crime No.597/2006 is already released on bail and the allegations are similar to the allegation in that case.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE.
uj.