Petitioners sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a case involving alleged forgery of a partnership deed. The court found prima facie material against the petitioners and deemed custodial interrogation necessary, dismissing the application.
Bail application dismissed; petitioners to face custodial interrogation.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BABU
MONDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 / 18TH CHAITHRA, 1941
Bail Appl..No. 1814 of 2019
CRIME NO. 296/2019 OF Ernakulam Town South Police Station , Ernakulam
PETITIONER/ACCUSED
1 MARTIN.A.P, AGED 48 YEARS S/O.A.V.PAUL, ANAMTHURUTHI HOUSE, CHILAVANOOR ROAD, KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI-682020.
2 JOSEPH.A.P. AGED 55 YEARS S/O.A.V.PAUL, ANAMTHURUTHIL HOUSE, CHILAVANOOR ROAD, KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI-682020.
3 GODWIN LAWRENCE AGED 50 YEARS S/O.LAWRENCE, PARAVARA HOUSE, THRIKKAKARA.P.O, KOCHI-682021.
BY ADVS.
SRI.VINAY RAMDAS SMT.K.B.ANAMIKA
RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.
2 PRIYA.P.K. AGED 46 YEARS
D/O.KOCHUVAREED, RESIDING AT 9A, P.M.J TOWERS, VIDYA NAGAR, BEHIND BHAVANS VIDYA MANDIRGIRI NAGAR SCHOOL, KADAVANTHARA.P.O, KOCHI-682020.
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.D.FEROZE SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN SRI.V.VINAY
BA.1814/2019
2
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.B.JAYASURYA SR PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.04.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
BA.1814/2019
3
ORDER
BA.1814/2019
4
deed. The first petitioner filed a complaint under Sec.190 of Cr.P.C against the petitioners alleging forgery and allied offences. It was alleged that the partnership deed was forged by the 2nd respondent by inserting two pages in it. The second respondent denied having executed the partnership deed. She filed a complaint under Sec.190 of Cr.P.C alleging forgery at the end of the petitioners. The said complaint was forwarded under Sec.156(3) of Cr.P.C to the local station house officer for registration of case and holding investigation. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent showed me the certified copy of the photocopy of the partnership deed produced before the magistrate by the petitioners. I have perused it. The learned counsel submits that the entire document is the result of a forgery. The learned counsel has pointed out that the document purported to have been executed on 1.4.2009 was written on a stamp paper purchased on 6.4.2009. My attention was drawn to page No. 5 of the partnership deed. The said page bears the dated seal of this court; that is, some day in
BA.1814/2019
5
January, 2006. The document was executed in 2009. The seal of this court is purported to have been affixed at the time of attestation of it by a deputy registrar of this court. The document suggests prima facie material against the petitioners. Custodial interrogation appears to be necessary for an effective investigation of the case. The application therefore deserves only a dismissal.
4.Dismissed.
Sd/-
A.M.BABU
Judge
Mrcs/8.4.
True copy
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted given prima facie material suggesting forgery and the necessity of custodial interrogation.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Martin.A.P
Joseph.A.P.
Godwin Lawrence
State of Kerala
Priya.P.K.
A.M. Babu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
