Allowed

Ajayakumar J v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Jun 2019Bail Appl./1022/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court granted anticipatory bail to the accused in a prosecution for cheating and forgery involving forged sale deeds. The court directed cooperation with investigation, interim bail conditions, and prohibited restraining orders pending interrogation outcomes.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to appearance for interrogation, cooperation, handover of documents, executing bond of Rs.50,000, providing sureties, and adhering to specific restrictions.

Ajayakumar J Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 22ND JYAISHTA, 1941

¶5

Bail Appl..No.1022 of 2018

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 1919/2017 of I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, TRIVANDRUM

¶7

CRIME NO.1169/2017 OF Balaramapuram Police Station , Thiruvananthapuram

¶8

PETITIONER:

¶9

AJAYAKUMAR J

¶10

AGED 46 YEARS, S/O. LATE JOSEPH, NIDHIVETTIYA VEEDU, KAKKALAMKANAM, KANJIRAMKULAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695524.

¶11

BY ADVS. SRI.K.B.PRADEEP SMT.J.HARIPRIYA

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶14

2 S I OF POLICE BALARAMAPURAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695501.

¶15

3 SHEEBA RANI AGED 42 YEARS, D/O. MERCY, RESIDING AT NIDHIVETTIYA VEEDU, KAKKALAMKANAM, KANJIRAMKULAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695524.

¶16

BY ADVS. SRI.B.THARIF SRI.M.R.SARIN

¶17

OTHER PRESENT:

¶18

SMT.PRIYA SHANAVAS, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶19

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

B.A.No.1022/2018

¶21

¶22

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶23

B.A.No.1022 of 2018

¶24

Dated this the 12^th day of June, 2019

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The petitioner has been arrayed as the sole accused in Crime No.1169/2017 of Balaramapuram Police Station, which has been registered for offences punishable under Sections 420 and 468 of IPC.

¶27

The prosecution case in short is that by impersonating the lady defacto complainant (who is none other than the wife of the petitioner/accused) by forging her signature and thump impression, the petitioner/accused, husband fabricated three sale deeds pertaining to 3.7 acres of land owned by her and got such sale deeds executed and registered in the year 2005 and thereby has purportedly transferred the said property in his own favaour and later sold out the entire land and thereby committed the above said offences.

¶28

The above said crime has been registered on the basis of the First Information Statement/complaint given by the lady defacto complainant (wife) on 1.9.2017, pursuant to which the instant crime

¶29

B.A.No.1022/2018

¶30

¶31

has been registered on the same day. It is pointed out by the petitioner that the alleged impersonation and fabrication have occurred as early as in the year 2005 and the complaint has been made only very belatedly as late as on 1.9.2017 and the said allegations have been raised with a view to set up defence in civil cases, as the relationship between the spouses has subsequently worsened. It is further pointed out that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not really necessary.

¶32

After hearing both sides and after evaluating the facts and circumstances of this case, it is seen that the alleged incidents are pertaining to the year 2005 and has been made belatedly as late as on 1.9.2017. The instant anticipatory bail application has been pending before this Court since 8.2.2018. The main allegation is that the thump impression and the signature of the defacto complainant have been forged. If that be so,the correctness or otherwise of the said factual assertion can be easily known by ascertaining the genuineness or otherwise of the thump impression and the signature by the experts of competent for finger print analysis and handwriting analysis, who are easily available in the State Forensic Laboratory and such other institutions. Moreover, it is seen that the parties are spouses, if the petitioner, who is the husband, is forced to undergo

¶33

B.A.No.1022/2018

¶34

¶35

detention in a case like this, then it could well turn out to be the “last straw on the camels back ” and the relationship between the spouses might irretrievably lead to a breakdown and any possible patch up either to peacefully part or for peaceful reunion might become a teasing illusion. Taking into account consideration all these relevant aspects, this Court is of the considered view that the plea of the petitioner for anticipatory bail could be considered. However, the petitioner will have to co-operate with the investigation process. Accordingly the following directions and orders are passed.

¶36

1) The petitioner will immediately personally appear before the Investigating Officer in relation to the instant crime No.1169/2017 of Balaramapuram Police Station for interrogation purposes without any further delay, at any rate, by 10 a.m. on any day on or before 01.7.2019.

¶37

2) The petitioner will fully co-operate with the Investigating Officer in the above interrogation process. In case any of the original documents, which are the subject matter of the allegations in this crime, are available with the petitioner, then he shall handover such documents to the Investigating Officer, if so insisted by him.

¶38

3) After the interrogation process is over, if the Investigating Officer arrests the petitioner in relation to the above said crime, then he shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) each and on his furnishing two solvent sureties each to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer concerned. However, the grant of bail is subject to the following conditions:

¶39

(i) The petitioner shall not involve in any criminal offences of similar nature.

¶40

(ii) The petitioner shall fully co-operate with the investigation.

¶41

(iii) The petitioner shall report before the Investigating

¶42

B.A.No.1022/2018

¶43

¶44

Officer as and when required in that connection.

¶45

(iv) The petitioner shall not influence witness or shall not tamper or attempt to tamper evidence in any manner, whatsoever.

¶46

(v) The petitioner shall not go or visit anywhere near the residence of the lady defacto complainant

¶47

If there is any violation of the abovesaid conditions by the petitioner, then the jurisdictional court concerned stand hereby empowered, to consider the plea for cancellation of bail at the appropriate time.

¶48

With these observations and directions, the above Bail Application stands allowed.

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

¶51

acd

Ajayakumar J v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajayakumar J 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

Sajimol, Vs Sajitha Beegum

A.Shyni Vs Binu Alex

Rlv.Ramakrishnan @ K.R.Ramakrishnan Vs State of Kerala

Shaffi Vs State of Kerala

Mahesh Nair Vs State of Kerala

Unais Vs State of Kerala