Bail Appl./9079/2016 of K.MOOSA Vs THE STATE OF KERALA on 30 December 2016

ORDER

1. Petitioner is the 4[th] accused in crimeno.218/2014 of Chandera police station.There are altogether four accused. They areallegedtohavecommitted offencespunishable under sections 420, 465, 468 and471 of the IPC read with IPC 34. Petitioneris in custody. He seeks bail.

2. The prosecution case is that 20 cents ofproperty belonging to the de factocomplainant was sold to the 1[st] accusedwithout the knowledge of the former andunder a fabricated sale deed. It is allegedthat the petitioner was the person whoimpersonated the de facto complainant andappeared before the Sub Registry office,Thrikkaripur and signed before the SubRegistrar as if he were the de factocomplainant.

BA.9079/16

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitionerand the learned Public Prosecutor.and the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The alleged forgery was in 1996, that is, 20years ago. It is alleged by the petitionerthat the 1[st] accused is conducting a poultryfarm in the property in question for thelast several years. It is also alleged thatin the civil suit filed by the 1[st] accusedagainst the de facto complainant the latteris restrained by an order of temporaryinjunction from entering into the property.It is not necessary to go into the meritsand demerits of the prosecution case. Theinvestigation in the case is almostcompleted. The petitioner has beeninterrogated. His signature and fingerprintwere taken. What remains is to file acharge-sheet on receipt of the opinion ofthe fingerprint and hand writing expert. Thepetitioner is in custody since 14.12.2016.years ago. It is alleged by the petitionerthat the 1[st] accused is conducting a poultryfarm in the property in question for thelast several years. It is also alleged thatin the civil suit filed by the 1[st] accusedagainst the de facto complainant the latteris restrained by an order of temporaryinjunction from entering into the property.It is not necessary to go into the meritsand demerits of the prosecution case. Theinvestigation in the case is almostcompleted. The petitioner has beeninterrogated. His signature and fingerprintwere taken. What remains is to file acharge-sheet on receipt of the opinion ofthe fingerprint and hand writing expert. Thepetitioner is in custody since 14.12.2016.

His continued custody does not appear to benecessary. For the above reasons I find thatthe petitioner can be released on bail.

Conclusion

In the result, the application isallowed. The petitioner shall be released onbail on his executing a bond for Rs.40,000/-with two solvent sureties for the like sumeach to the satisfaction of the learnedMagistratehavingjurisdiction.Thepetitioner shall make himself available forany further interrogation if so required bythe investigating officer in writing. Thisparticular condition will be in force for aperiod of two months or till the filing ofthe final report, whichever is earlier. Thepetitioner shall not intimidate witnesses ortry to influence them. Nor shall thepetitioner destroy evidence or tamper withit. He shall surrender his passport beforethe learned Magistrate on the first workingday after his release. The learned Magistrate is hereby empowered to cancel thebail in the event of breach of any of theconditions mentioned above.

Sd/-

A.M.BABU

Judge

Mrcs/30.12.2016

//True copy//

P.S to Judge