This application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure.

2.

Sri. Moolakkuduvan Chekkutty, the additional 3^rd respondent

herein and Sri.Usman, the husband of the applicant herein are brothers.

According to the prosecution, the applicant herein and the additional 3^rd

respondent were co-owners of an item of property having an extent of

about 2.82 acres situated at Pulpatta Village.

3.

The prosecution alleges that the applicant herein, along with

her husband, Sri. Usman, who has been arrayed as the 1^st accused in the

aforesaid crime forged a power of attorney purported to have been

signed by the 3^rd respondent and presented it before the Indian Embassy

at Riyadh for attestation. The 3^rd respondent asserts that he had neither

affixed his signature nor did he appear before the Consulate. By virtue of

the power of attorney, Usman was granted authority to assign the

property jointly held by the applicant and the 3^rd respondent. It is further

alleged that on the strength of the forged power of attorney, Usman,

acting on behalf of the 3^rd respondent and the applicant herein, executed

3

an assignment deed as Document No.4924/2012 at the Sub Registrar

Office at Manjeri and thereby caused wrongful loss to the additional 3^rd

respondent. Stating these allegations, a complaint was lodged before the

police leading to registration of crime No.228/2018 of the Manjeri Police

Station under Sections 420, 465, 467, 448 and 471 r/w. 34 of the I.P.C.

4.

Sri. S. Sreekumar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for

the applicant submitted that there is no truth in the allegations.

According to the learned Senior Counsel, Annexure A2 Power of Attorney

dated 01.5.2012 carries the signature of the 3^rd respondent and he

himself had presented the same before the Attache Consular, Embassy of

India at Riyadh. He would further contend that there were some

difference of opinion between the brothers which led the 3^rd respondent

to level false accusations against his own brother and his wife.

5.

Heard the learned Public Prosecutor. I have also heard

Sri. C. Dinesh, the learned counsel, who was entered appearance for the

additional 3^rd respondent.

6.

This Court by order 28.10.2019 had directed the

Investigating Officer to ascertain from the Consulate as to whether

Annexure A2 Power of Attorney was in fact attested by the Attache.

Today when the matter was taken up, the learned Public Prosecutor has

4

produced the E-mail received by the Station House Officer, Manjeri Police

Station from the Consular, Indian Embassy at Riyadh wherein the Attache

has confirmed having attested the Power of Attorney. The Attache has

confirmed that it was executed by Sri. Chekkutty and Smt. Asmabi on

01.05.2012 under file No.SAUR 14098712. Thus there cannot be any

doubt that the allegation raised by the 3^rd respondent has no legs to

stand .

7.

In view of the above, I do not think that the custodial

interrogation of the applicant is required for an effective investigation in

the instant case.

In the result, this application will stand allowed. In the event

of the arrest of the applicant in Crime No 228 of 2018 of the Manjeri

Police Station, the applicant shall be released on bail on her executing a

bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only) with two

solvent sureties each for the like sum. The above order shall be subject

to the following conditions:

i) The applicant shall co-operate with the investigation and

shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when

ordered to do so.

ii) She shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement,

threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of

the case so as to dissuade him/ her from disclosing such facts

to the court or to any police officer.

5

iii) She shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the

jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for

cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate o