Vanajakumari, Venugopalan Nair and Remadevi v. State of Kerala and Chandrika Kumari

# `IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM` ``` PRESENT ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. ``` ``` TUESDAY, THE 5[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 14TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945 ``` ## `BAIL APPL. NO. 10526 OF 2023` ``` CRIME NO.1910/2023 OF Pothencode Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram ``` ## `PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:` ``` 1VANAJAKUMARI, AGED 62 YEARS W/O VENUGOPALAN NAIR, MAILAPPALLI HOUSE, KERALADITHYAPURAM, POWDIKKONAM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695587 2VENUGOPALAN NAIR , AGED 65 YEARS S/O KRISHNA PILLAI, MAILAPPALLI HOUSE, KERALADITHYAPURAM, POWDIKKONAM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695587 3REMADEVI , AGED 61 YEARS W/O PADMANABHA PILLAI, MAILAPPALLI HOUSE, KERALADITHYAPURAM, POWDIKKONAM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695587 BY ADV SOJAN MICHEAL ``` ## `RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:` ``` 1STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2CHANDRIKA KUMARI ,( SOUGHT TO BE IMPLEADED ) W/O BHASKARAN NAIR, PARUTHIKUNNATHU VEEDU, POWDIKKONAM P.O, ULIYAZHATHURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT ( IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL 2ND RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER DATED 24.11.2023 ) BY ADV P.V.DILEEP ``` ## `SRI G. SUDHEER (PP)` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.12.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` B.A.No.10526 of 2023 ``` 2 ## **ORDER** Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.1910 of 2023 of Pothencode Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District, alleging commission of offences under Sections 419, 420, 468 and 471 r/w Section 34 of the IPC. Petitioners 1 and 3 are direct sisters of the defacto complainant. The 2[nd] petitioner is the husband of the 1[st] petitioner. 2. The allegation is that some time between 30.12.2002 and 27.10.2006, the petitioners had executed a sale deed in respect of 4 cents of property, belonging to the defacto complainant without her knowledge and consent, to one Sanal Kumar and thereafter, the said property got re-transferred in the name of the defacto complainant. It is alleged that the document re-transferring the property in the name of the defacto complainant is in the custody of the 1[st] ``` B.A.No.10526 of 2023 ``` 3 petitioner and the same has also not been handed over to the defacto complainant. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are absolutely innocent in the matter. It is submitted that the complaint itself has been raised after a long delay of nearly 21 years. It is submitted that the defacto complainant had herself transferred the property to Sanal Kumar [who is stated to be no more] as a part of some financial transaction and had thereafter, obtained re-conveyance of the property from the aforesaid Sanal Kumar. It is submitted that the fact that the property was re-conveyed to the name of the defacto complainant itself shows that the petitioners have absolutely no role in the matter. It is submitted that at any rate the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is submitted that the 1[st] petitioner is aged 62, the 2[nd] petitioner is aged 65 and the 3[rd] petitioner ``` B.A.No.10526 of 2023 ``` 4 is aged 61. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant vehemently opposes the grant of anticipatory bail. It is submitted that going by the allegations contained in the first information statement of the defacto complainant, it was the petitioners who had connived with the aforesaid Sanal Kumar to transfer the property belonging to the defacto complainant in the name of Sanal Kumar and to thereafter get the property re-transferred in the name of the defacto complainant. It is submitted that the defacto complainant was completely unaware of the transactions in respect of her property. It is submitted that the defacto complainant came to know of the transactions only when she applied for an encumbrance certificate in respect of her property. It is submitted that the document through which the property was re-transferred by the aforesaid Sanal ``` B.A.No.10526 of 2023 ``` 5 Kumar in the name of the defacto complainant is in the custody of the petitioners and the same has also been not returned to the defacto complainant. It is submitted that in such circumstances the custodial interrogation may be absolutely necessary as recovery of the said document is also essential. 5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant, I am of the opinion that the petitioners can be granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions. The petitioners are aged 62, 65 and 61 years respectively. They are close relatives of the defacto complainant. Petitioners 1 and 3 are sisters of the defacto complainant, while the 2[nd] petitioner is her brother in law. No criminal antecedents are reported against the petitioners. The property of the defacto complainant which was allegedly sold without her knowledge, by the petitioners, to one Sanal Kumar has ``` B.A.No.10526 of 2023 ``` 6 already been re-conveyed to the defacto complainant even on her own showing, though it is alleged that the original of the document through which the property was re-conveyed in the name of the defacto complainant is with the petitioners and recovery may be necessary. It is clear from the judgment of the Supreme Court in **Sushila Aggarwal & Others v. State (NCT Of Delhi) and Another** [2020 (5) SCC 1] that even while on anticipatory bail, the accused can be deemed to be under custody for the purposes of effecting recovery etc. Therefore this anticipatory bail application is allowed. Therefore, it is directed that the petitioners shall be released on bail, in the event of arrest in connection with Crime No.1910 of 2023 of Pothencode Police Station subject to the following conditions: (i) Petitioners shall execute separate bonds for sums of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the ``` B.A.No.10526 of 2023 ``` 7 satisfaction of the arresting officer; (ii) Petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer in Crime No.1910 of 2023 of Pothencode Police Station at 11.00 am on 12.12.2023 and thereafter as and when called upon to do so; (iii) Petitioners shall not attempt to interfere with the investigation or to influence or intimidate any witness in Crime No.1910 of 2023 of Pothencode Police Station. (iv) Petitioners shall not involve in any other crime while on bail. **Sd/GOPINATH P. JUDGE** SSK/05/12 ``` B.A.No.10526 of 2023 ``` 8 ## `APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 10526/2023` ## `RESPONDENT ANNEXURES` |`Annexure-`|`The true copy of the F.I.R in crime no. 1910/ 2023`| |---|---| |`R2(1)`|`Pothencode Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram`| ||`District`| |`Annexure-`|`The true copy of the encumbrance certificate dated`| |`R2(2)`|`13.09.2023 issued from the S.R.O Pothencode,`| ||`Thiruvananthapuram District`| |`Annexure-`|`The true copy of the sale deed no. 3754/2002 dated`| |`R2(3)`|`30.12.2002 of SRO, Pothencode which was transferred`| ||`to one Sanal kumar by forging the signature of`| ||`defactocomplainant`| |`Annexure-`|`The true copy of the order dated 31.09.2023 in`| |`R2(4)`|`Criminal M.C No. 2783/2023 of the Sessions Judges`| ||`Court, Thiruvananthapuram`|