Petitions under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 2. B.A. No.6830 of 2014 has been filed by the first accused in Crime No.368 of 2012 of the Pazhayangadi Police Station, Kannur District. B.A. No.6829 of 2014, has been filed by accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.536 of 2014, of the said Police station.
3. Crime No.368 of 2012 is registered for the offences punishable under Sections 418, 420, 423, 464, 468 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation against the petitioner is that he executed a sale deed in respect of one acre of property by accepting an amount of ₹5,00,000/- as consideration, from the de-facto complainant by representing that the said property belonged to his mother and on her death the same devolved on him. The investigation has revealed that the third accused, who is the document writer, was instrumental in forging a false patta in respect of the property and prepared the sale deed in question. The first accused in the said case, who is the petitioner in B.A. No.6830 of 2014, was absconding and the police was in search of him.
4. While so, it is alleged that, on 4.9.2014 during night, on getting information that the first accused in Crime No.368 of 2012 was present at his house, the police rushed to the said house. It is alleged that his wife and son have prevented the police from discharging their official duties and they obstructed the arrest of the first accused. The first accused, however escaped from the house. Consequently, Crime No.536 of 2014, has been registered for the offences punishable under Sections 353 and 332 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. The contents of the C.D. in Crime No.368 of 2012 prima facie reveal the complicity of the petitioner in B.A. No.6830 of 2014, who is the first accused. The investigation of the said case is not over. Considering the seriousness of the allegations against the petitioner in B.A. No.6830 of 2014, I am satisfied that he is not entitled to the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. At the same time, as far as Crime No.536 of 2014 is concerned, petitioner Nos.2 and 3, who are accused Nos.3 and 2 respectively, are entitled to the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail and therefore, the B.A. No.6829 of 2014 can be allowed in part. At the same time, the first petitioner in B.A. No.6829 of 2014 also, is not entitled to discretionary relief of anticipatory bail.
6. In the result, bail application No.6829 is partly allowed and the investigating officer or such other police officer, who is conducting the arrest of the petitioners, is directed to enlarge the petitioners 2 and 3 on bail in the event of their arrest on each of them executing a bond for ₹25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the officer conducting arrest, and subject to the following terms and conditions:-
(i) The petitioner Nos.2 and 3 shall report before the investigating officer in between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. on all Saturdays and Wednesdays, commencing commencing from 8.11.2014 for a period of three months or till the filing of the final report in this case, whichever is earlier.
(ii) The petitioner Nos.2 and 3 shall not tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses.
(iii) The petitioner Nos.2 and 3 shall make themselves available for interrogation as and when required by the investigating officer.
(iv) The petitioner Nos.2 and 3 shall not involve in any offence while on bail.
It is made clear that the violation of any of the conditions stipulated above will result in the cancellation of bail.
As far as the first petitioner in B.A. No.6829 of 2014, is concerned, this bail application stands dismissed. Bail Application No.6830 of 2014, is dismissed.
Sd/-
B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE dl // TRUE COPY // PA to Judge