Allowed

Sibi Jose, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Jun 2023Bail Appl./1625/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge of the Kerala High Court granted anticipatory bail to the accused in a forgery case arising from a marital property dispute. Bail was granted subject to conditions ensuring the petitioner's presence in Kerala during investigation and surrender for interrogation.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted contingent upon surrender for interrogation within two weeks, execution of bond, surrender of passport, and conditions ensuring presence in Kerala.

Sibi Jose, Vs State of Kerala — Kerala HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

B.A.No.1625/23

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

¶6

MONDAY, THE 5^TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 15TH JYAISHTA, 1945 BAIL APPL. NO. 1625 OF 2023

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

SIBI JOSE, AGED 46 YEARS, SON OF JOSE, KOMBANATHOTTATHIL HOUSE, EAST MARADY P.O, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN – 686 673.

¶9

BY ADVS. PEEYUS A.KOTTAM RAGESH CHAND R.G.

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682 031.

¶12

2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, THODUPUZHA POLICE STATION, THODUPUZHA TOWN ROAD, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT, KERALA., PIN – 685 584.

¶13

3 ADDL R3. SHIJI JOSE, D/O.JOSE, ELLIKUNNUMPURATH HOUSE, NADUKANDAM KARA ,KARIMKUNNAM VIIIAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL R3 AS PER ORDER DATED 23/03/2023 IN CRL MA 1/2023

¶14

B.A.No.1625/23

¶15

¶16

BY ADVS. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR P.CHANDY JOSEPH C.K.VIDYASAGAR

¶17

SMT.SEETHA S-SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶18

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

B.A.No.1625/23

O R D E R

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.141 of 2023 of Thodupuzha Police Station, which was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 468 and 470 of IPC. The aforesaid crime was registered based on a complaint submitted by the de facto complainant, who is the former wife of the petitioner herein.

¶23

Facts which led to the registration of the said case are as follows:

¶24

The marriage between the petitioner and the de facto complainant was solemnized on 28.09.2000, and thereafter they were living together as husband and wife. Two children were also born in the wedlock. Later, the relationship between the parties got strained and ultimately, it resulted in the termination of the marriage as evidenced by Annexure-A4 judgment passed by the Family Court, Thodupuzha in O.P(Div).No.105 of 2022 based on mutual consent.

¶25

While their marriage was subsisting, Annexure-A3 Power of Attorney was executed by the de facto complainant in

¶26

B.A.No.1625/23

¶27

¶28

favour of the petitioner herein, authorizing him to convey a property having an extent of 14.57 ares belonging to the de facto complainant. On the strength of the said Power of Attorney, the petitioner executed the Annexure-A5 sale deed conveying a portion of the said property in favour of the son of the petitioner. De facto complainant submitted Annexure-A6 original petition, O.P.No.273 of 2020, before the Family Court, Thodupuzha for setting aside the aforesaid document. During the trial of the said original petition, the petitioner produced two agreements which are produced as Annexure-A1 and Annexure-A2, purported to have been executed between the petitioner and the de facto complainant. In the proceedings before the Family Court, the de facto complainant denied her signature, which was found in Annexure-A1 and Annexure-A2. Consequently, an application was submitted by the petitioner, which is produced as Annexure-A7 by the petitioner to send the same to the handwriting expert. The said application was dismissed by the Family Court and the said order is now under challenge before this Court in an original petition.

¶29

B.A.No.1625/23 5

¶30

Subsequently, the de facto complainant submitted a complaint alleging forgery as regards Annexure-A1 and Annexure-A2 documents and Crime No.141 of 2023 was registered in such circumstances. This application for anticipatory bail is submitted by the petitioner as he apprehends arrest in connection with the investigation of the said case.

¶31

Heard Sri.Peeyus A.Kottam, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.C.K.Vidyasagar, learned counsel for the de facto complainant and Smt.Seetha S., learned Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶32

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent of all the allegations and false allegations are raised against the petitioner. According to him, even though the petitioner produced Annexure-A1 and Annexure-A2 documents before the Family Court during the year 2022, the crime was registered only in the year 2023. It is further pointed out that even though an application for sending the document to handwriting expert was submitted, the same was objected to by the de facto complainant, consequent to

¶33

B.A.No.1625/23

¶34

¶35

which the same was dismissed, and the matter is now before this Court. The complaint alleging forgery was submitted by the de facto complainant with the sole intention to harass the petitioner as the petitioner submitted Annexure-A8 O.P (guardian), seeking to appoint the petitioner as the guardian of the minor daughter since their daughter wants to go to USA for educational purpose. The specific contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the purpose behind the raising of the false allegation at the instance of the de facto complainant is to prevent the petitioner and the daughter from going to the USA. The petitioner further submits that he is prepared to abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court and shall cooperate with the investigation.

¶36

The learned counsel for the de facto complainant opposed the aforesaid prayer. The learned counsel specifically points out that the original petition to set aside the AnnexureA5 document was submitted before the Family Court in the year 2020. The counter affidavit to the original petition was submitted by the petitioner herein after one year, wherein

¶37

B.A.No.1625/23

¶38

¶39

there was no whisper regarding Annexure-A1 and Annexure-A2 documents. The reasons for the execution of Power of Attorney in favour of the petitioner as explained in the said counter affidavit was something else and there was no mention of the documents produced as Annexure A and A2. There were no averments concerning the existence of the said documents in their objection. Similarly, during the cross examination of the de facto complainant in the original petitioner also, no reference with respect to the existence of the aforesaid documents was made. The existence of the aforementioned documents was revealed only when it was produced along with the proof affidavit submitted by the petitioner before the Family Court. It is contended by the learned counsel for the de facto complainant that, the fact that there was no reference or pleadings concerning the existence of Annexure-A1 and Annexure-A2 documents in the initial stage of the suit and it was revealed only at the fag end of the trial of the said case, by itself would indicate the forgery. The petitioner created a document to defeat the legitimate claims raised by the defacto

¶40

¶41

B.A.No.1625/23

¶42

complaint in the proceeding before the Family Court. In such circumstances, he seeks the dismissal of the bail application. It is further highlighted by the de facto complainant that if the anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner it is likely to affect the investigation adversely. The learned Public Prosecutor also supports the contention put forward by the learned de facto complainant in this regard and seeks for dismissal of the application.

¶43

I have gone through the records. It is true that there are serious disputes as to the veracity of Annexure-A1 and Annexure-A3 documents. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the very fact that the petitioner himself came forward by filing Annexure-A7 application to send the aforesaid document to a handwriting expert would itself show the bona fide behind the acts of the petitioner. It is further pointed out that even the abovementioned prayer was objected by the de facto complainant. In response to the aforesaid contention, the learned counsel for the de facto complainant submits that the objection to the aforementioned application

¶44

B.A.No.1625/23

¶45

¶46

was raised by the petitioner only because of the fact that the said application was filed at the fag end of the trial and if the said application was allowed that would have prolonged the proceedings, thereby defeating the legitimate claims of the de facto complainant. After considering the relevant aspects, I am of the view that, as far as these proceedings are concerned, no significance can be given to the circumstances under which the Annexure-A7 application was submitted, the objections raised therein and also the orders passed therein. The crucial question that arises in this crime is whether the petitioner's allegation of forgery in respect of Annexure-A1 and AnnexureA2 are correct. It is a matter for investigation, and the various contentions raised by the petitioner as well as the de facto complainant in the civil proceedings may not have much relevance with respect to the same. Since the essential aspect to be found out in the investigation is the veracity of the documents, which are already on record, I am of the view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be necessary. All the documents are available for further

¶47

¶48

B.A.No.1625/23

¶49

investigation. In such circumstances, I do not find any reason to deny the plea sought by the petitioner for anticipatory bail. However, the cooperation of the petitioner with the investigation is to be ensured.

¶50

The learned counsel for the de facto complainant apprehends that the petitioner is likely to go out of the country if bail granted and therefore insists for the stringent conditions to ensure that he remains in the country until the investigation is over. In the facts and circumstances, I find that, there is some force in the aforesaid apprehension. Therefore, even while passing appropriate orders protecting the personal liberty of the petitioner, the presence of the petitioner in the country should be ensured until the investigation is over. In such circumstances, this application is disposed of with the following conditions:

¶51

(i) The petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating officer, within a period of two weeks from today, for subjecting himself to interrogation.

¶52

(ii) After interrogation, the petitioner shall be released on bail, on the very same day of surrender upon the petitioner executing a bond for Rs. 1,00,000/-

¶53

B.A.No.1625/23

¶54

¶55

(Rupees one lakh only) with two sureties each for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the investigating officer. (iii) The petitioner shall surrender his passport before the investigation officer, and upon such surrender, the investigation officer shall submit the same before the jurisdictional court. The release of the same can be sought by the petitioner by moving the jurisdictional court at the appropriate stage and upon convincing the said court as to his bonafides.

¶56

(iv) The petitioner shall fully cooperate with the investigation, including subjecting himself to the deemed police custody for the purpose of recovery, if any, as and when demanded.

¶57

(v) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer between 10.00 a.m and 11.00 a.m every Friday until further orders.

¶58

(vi) The petitioner shall also appear before the investigating officer as and when required. (vii) The petitioner shall not commit any offence of similar nature while on bail.

¶59

(viii) The petitioner shall not make any attempt to contact any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or through any other person, or in any other way try to tamper with the evidence or influence any witnesses or other persons related to the investigation.

¶60

(ix) The petitioner shall not leave the State of Kerala without the permission of the trial Court.

¶61

B.A.No.1625/23

¶62

¶63

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation of bail, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.

¶64

Sd/-

¶65

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

JUDGE

DG/6.6.23

B.A.No.1625/23

APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 1625/2023

¶71

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶72

Annexure A1	THE TRUE COPY BY THE PETITIO COMPLAINANT DA	OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED NER AND DE-FACTO TED 20.10.2019
Annexure A2	THE TRUE COPY UNDERSTANDING PETITIONER AND 05.11.2019	OF THE WRITTEN ENTERED BETWEEN DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT ON
Annexure A3	THE TRUE COPY EXECUTED BY TH FAVOUR OF PETI 121/2019 OF MU	OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY E DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT IN TIONER AS DOCUMENT NO. VATTUPUZHA SRO
Annexure A4	THE TRUE COPY 22.06.2022 IN FAMILY COURT,	OF THE ORDER DATED OP (DIV) 105/2022 OF THE THODUPUZHA
Annexure A5	THE TRUE COPY NO. 1280/2020	OF THE SALE DEED BEARING OF THODUPUZHA SRO
Annexure A6	THE TRUE COPY O.P.NO. 273/20 FAMILY COURT,	OF THE PAGE NO. 1 TO 4 IN 20 FILED BEFORE THE THODUPUZHA
Annexure A7	THE TRUE COPY I.A.NO. 14/202 DATED 17.02.20 FAMILY COURT,	OF THE PETITION IN 3 IN O.P.NO. 273/2020 23 FILED BEFORE THE THODUPUZHA
Annexure A8	THE TRUE COPY 27/2023 FILED THE FAMILY COU	OF THE OP (GUARDIAN) BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE RT, MUVATTUPUZHA
Annexure A9	THE TRUE COPY	OF THE FORM 1-797C NOTICE

¶73

B.A.No.1625/23

¶74

¶75

OF ACTION WITH REGARD TO THE REQUEST FOR EMIGRATION FOR THE PETITIONER SIBI JOSE

¶76

Annexure A10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 1-797C NOTICE OF ACTION WITH REGARD TO THE REQUEST FOR EMIGRATION FOR THE PETITIONER'S DAUGHTER VIVIENNE SIBI Annexure A11 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 141/2023 Annexure A12 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.02.2023 IN CRL.M.C. NO. 101/2023 BEFORE THE SESSIONS COURT, THODUPUZHA

¶77

RESPONDENT ANNEXURES

¶78

Annexure R3(a) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 20.10.2019 Annexure R3(b) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 05.11.2019 Annexure R3(c) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SALE DEED NO, 1280/2020 DATED 04.09.2020 Annexure R3(d) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE OP NO.273/2020 FILED BY THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, THODUPUZHA. Annexure R3(e) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER-ACCUSED IN OP NO. 273/2020 Annexure R3(f) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT OF AXIS BANK DATED 16.05.2022

Sibi Jose, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sibi Jose, 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Akhilraj Rs Vs State of Kerala Represented by the Public Prosecutor

K.P. John Vs State of Kerala

Rajesh Vs State of Kerala

P.Kumar Vs State Bank of India

Biju Sundar Vs Asst. Labour Officer (Grade-Ii), Paravur

Biju Sunder Vs Assistant Labour Officer