Allowed

Bharathan M P v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Feb 2018Bail Appl./189/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application was filed by Bharathan M P, accused in Crime No.179/2017 for offences under Sections 465, 466, 471 and 474 IPC. The Court allowed the application, observing that the allegedly forged document could not be verified as forged by the Forensic Science Laboratory and there was no apprehension of tampering with evidence post-retirement.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on executing a bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties for the like amount.

Bharathan M P Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 26TH MAGHA, 1939

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 189 of 2018

¶6

CRIME NO. 179/2017 OF ERNAKULAM CENTRAL POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶8

BHARATHAN M P, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O. PARAMESHWARA MENON, MULLOOR HOUSE, ERNAT TEMPLE ROAD, PALLURUTHY SOUTH, KOCHI.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.S.RAJEEV

¶10

SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN SRI.V.VINAY SRI.D.FEROZE

¶11

RESPONDENTS/STATE :

¶12

STATE OF KERALA,

¶13

REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,

¶14

ERNAKULAM-682031. (CRIME NO. 179/2017 OF CENTRAL POLICE

¶15

STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT).

¶16

STATION HOUSE OFFICER,

¶17

CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682011, (CRIME NO. 179/2017 OF CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT).

¶18

DY. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CBCID, KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶19

BY SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.REKHA C.NAIR

¶20

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-02-2018, THE COURT ON 15-02-2018, PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, J ************************* B.A.No.189 of 2018

¶22

Dated this the 15^th day of February, 2018

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

The petitioner is the sole accused in the case registered as Crime No.179/2017 of the Ernakulam Central police station under Sections 465, 466, 471 and 474 IPC. He seeks the protection envisaged under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in the event of arrest by the police in the case.

¶25

The prosecution case can be briefly stated as follows: Plameena, the grandmother of the de facto complainant, had obtained provisional 'patta' in respect of 43.50 cents of land in Mulavukadu Village in Kanayannur Taluk. This land was acquired for Gosree Project. But, this land had not been notified for acquisition as it was shown as

¶26

river puramboke in the revenue records and no

¶27

B.A.No.189/2018

¶28

¶29

compensation was also paid. This led to institution of many writ petitions and appeals before this Court. The petitioner was the Tahsildar of Kanayannur Taluk from 14.07.2016 onwards. It is alleged that the petitioner produced before this Court a notice allegedly received by the father's brother of the de facto complainant in W.A.Nos.1282/2013 and 8/2014. The allegation is that the petitioner has forged and created a notice which was purportedly signed and received by the father's brother of the de facto complainant on 31.07.1973 and that the petitioner produced it before this Court as if it was the original notice received by the father's brother of the de facto complainant on 31.07.1973. It is further alleged that the petitioner cancelled the patta issued for the aforesaid property on the basis of the forged document.

¶30

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary and the

¶31

B.A.No.189/2018

¶32

¶33

report filed by the investigating officer.

¶34

Regarding the allegation that the petitioner cancelled the patta in respect of the land using the forged document, Annexture A7 document produced by the petitioner would show that order for cancellation of the patta had been issued as early as on 26.09.1973. Then the patta was not cancelled and as per Annexture A7 letter dated 31.12.2016, the District Collector had directed the petitioner, who was then the Tahsildar, to cancel the patta.

¶35

The case diary shows that a case had been earlier registered as Crime No.534/2014 on the same set of allegations and that case was referred as undetected. The police had already seized the document allegedly forged by the petitioner for the purpose of that case. The report of the investigating officer shows that the document allegedly forged by the petitioner was examined in the Forensic Science Laboratory but it could not be found that it is a

¶36

B.A.No.189/2018

¶37

¶38

forged document. The petitioner has retired from service on 31.05.2017. Therefore, there can be no apprehension that he would use official position to tamper with evidence or to influence the witnesses. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner appears to be not necessary to have an effective investigation in the case. The prosecution has no case that the petitioner has got criminal antecedents. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the discretion of the Court can be exercised in favour of the petitioner to grant him pre-arrest bail.

¶39

In the result, the application is allowed and it is ordered as follows:

¶40

The petitioner shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties each for the like amount in the event of his arrest by the police in Crime No. 179/2017 of the Ernakulam Central police station.

¶41

B.A.No.189/2018

¶42

¶43

The petitioner shall appear before the

¶44

investigating officer as and when directed in writing to do so.

¶45

The petitioner shall not influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses. He shall not make any attempt to tamper with the evidence in the case.

¶46

The petitioner shall not leave the State of Kerala without the prior permission of the jurisdictional Court.

¶47

The petitioner shall produce his passport in the Magistrate's Court concerned within three days from the date of his release on bail. If he has no passport, he shall file an affidavit to that effect in the Magistrate's Court concerned within that period.

¶48

(sd/-)

¶49

R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, JUDGE

¶50

jsr

Bharathan M P v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharathan M P v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.C.Jayadevan Vs State of Kerala

Anas Vs State of Kerala

Sameesh Bhasi @ Sami Vs State of Kerala

F. Edison Vs the Station House Officer, Kunnamkulam Police Station

Dr. Biju Luke George Vs State of Kerala

Sarafudeen Vs State of Kerala