IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS THURSDAY, THE 15 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 26TH MAGHA, 1945 BAIL APPL. NO. 624 OF 2024 CRIME NO.75/2024 OF Chalakkudy Police Station, Thrissur PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 AND 2:

1 THRESSIAMMA, AGED 62 YEARS W/O.JOSE, CHAKKALAMATTAM HOUSE, PARIYARAM (P.O), THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680721

2 GEETHU, AGED 36 YEARS D/O.THRESSIAMMA, CHAKKALAMATTAM HOUSE, PARIYARAM (P.O), THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680721 BY ADV NIREESH MATHEW RESPONDENT:

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN - 682031 SR.PP-SRI.VIPIN NARAYANAN THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Dated this the 15 th day of February, 2024 This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. filed by accused Nos.1 and 2 in crime No.75 of 2024 of Chalakudy Police Station, Thrissur, registered under Sections 467, 406 and 420 r/w Section 34 of IPC.

2. The prosecution allegation is that, petitioners 1 and 2, forging the signature of the defacto complainant, obtained loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from Pariyaram Mekhala Vanitha Co-operative Society, where the 1st accused is a Board Member and the 2nd accused is an Attender, and thus they cheated the defacto complainant.

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

4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the defacto complainant, on the request made by the petitioners, agreed to avail a loan in her name, and the amount was given to the petitioners. Later, the petitioners cleared that liability. So they never cheated the defacto complainant. They are ready to abide by any conditions imposed by this Court.

6. Learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that the 2nd petitioner forged the documents, and availed loan from the Co-operative Bank, without the knowledge of the defacto complainant. Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that the loan amount availed by the petitioners in the name of the defacto complainant was already paid off by the petitioners. Since the forgery alleged is to be investigated by collecting further information and documents available with the petitioners, their presence is required as submitted by learned Public Prosecutor. Moreover, the petitioners had availed loans in the name of about 10 persons, by forging their signatures, and that fact also has to be investigated properly.

7. Admittedly, the petitioners paid off the loan amount availed in the name of the defacto complainant. Whether the defacto complainant had agreed for taking that loan or it was taken without her knowledge by forging her signature etc. is to be found out after conducting detailed investigation.

8. Considering the fact that the petitioners paid off the loan amount availed in the name of the defacto complainant, and both petitioners are ladies, and the 1st petitioner is a senior citizen, this Court is inclined to allow this bail application on the following terms:

(i) The petitioners shall surrender before the Investigating Officer on or before 21.02.2024, and shall subject themselves for interrogation. The Investigating Officer can collect all material/evidence relevant for the purpose of investigation from the petitioners.

(ii) In the event of arrest, the petitioners shall be released on bail on executing bond for Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer;

(iii) Thereafter, the petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer on alternate Saturdays starting from 24.02.2024, between 10.00 a.m. and 11.00 a.m., for a period of three months or till the final report is filed, whichever is earlier.

(iv) The petitioners shall not influence or intimidate the witnesses or tamper with the investigation.

(v) The petitio