A. Badharudeen, J.

1. These petitions, filed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, are at the instance of the 1st and 2nd accused in Crime No. 945/2021 of Kasaba Police Station, Palakkad, where they alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 420, 466 and 468 of Indian Penal Code, and the petitioners seek pre-arrest bail.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

3. Perused the case diary materials placed by the learned Public Prosecutor in this case.

4. The prosecution allegation herein is that accused Nos. 1 to 3 herein forged possession certificate, tax receipt, Thandaper account, location sketch as well as encumbrance certificate pertaining to 82 acres of property belonged to one Smt. Thankam B.Menon and attempted to sell the same in favour of the defacto complainant for a total consideration of 25 crores. Accordingly, they have received Rs. 1,05,000/-(Rs. 30,000/-+ Rs. 75,000/-) also for effectuating the sale. Later, Smt. Thankam B.Menon informed that the property is subject matter of litigation and agreement could not be executed till the litigation is over. This is the premise on which the prosecution alleges commission of the above offences.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners are innocent and the allegations are false. According to the learned counsel for the 2nd accused, the 2nd accused is a lady worked as Para Legal Volunteer (PLV) attached to District Legal Services Authority, Palakkad and a social worker. Further, the entire allegations are false and according to him, the mistakes in the documents alleged to be forged are pertaining to change in Survey Number. Therefore, the learned counsel pressed for grant of Anticipatory Bail on the submission that the 2nd accused is ready to co-operate with the investigation.

6. The learned counsel for the 1st accused also submitted that the 1st accused is innocent and the entire allegations are false and, therefore, he may be enlarged on bail.

7. The learned Public Prosecutor strongly opposed grant of bail and submitted that there are abundant materials prima facie to see the complicity of the petitioners in these cases, where the prosecution alleges creation of forged documents as that of the Revenue Department and Registration Department pertaining to 82 acres of property in the name of one Smt. Thankam B.Menon, which is subject matter of litigation, on the premise to sell the same to the defacto complainant. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor further that in earlier occasion also, the 1st and 2nd accused involved in crimes of similar nature. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, arrest, custodial interrogation and investigation regarding the origin of the forged documents and the manner in which forgery was committed are absolutely essential to go with the smooth investigation of this case, and in such a case, grant of Anticipatory Bail would be fatal to the investigation.

8. I have perused the FIS as well as the report of the Investigating Officer. In the FIS, the defacto complainant categorically stated that accused Nos. 1 and 2 jointly made him to believe that property of 82 acres in the name of Smt. Thankam B.Menon is fit for sale and, accordingly, accused Nos. 1 to 3 handed over possession certificate, tax receipt, Thandaper account, location sketch as well as encumbrance certificate in relation to the property to appraise the said fact and collected Rs. 30,000/-and Rs. 75,000/-on two occasions. But later, enquiry revealed that the above documents were forged with intention to cheat and defraud the defacto complainant with intention to make unlawful enrichment for the accused and corresponding loss to the defacto complainant.

9. It is pertinent to note that Kasaba Police registered Crime No. 539/2014 alleging commission of offences under Section 120(B), 406, 417, 419, 420, 465, 468, 471 r/w 34 IPC against the 1st accused and the same is under investigation after renumbering the same as Crime No. 705/2014 of Town South Police Station and the allegations therein are also some what similar, inclusive of forging of documents.

10. It is also reported that the 2nd accused also involved in Crime No. 508/2020 of Kottayi Police Station alleging commission of offences under Sections 341, 452, 384, 385, 388, 389 r/w 34 IPC and on investigation, final report also filed before the trial court.

11. Although, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are innocent and the investigation is possible even without having their custody, it is to be noted that the allegations are very serious. That is to say, the allegations are to the effect that accused Nos. 1 to 3 after sharing common intention, created forged possession certificate, tax receipt, Thandaper account, location sketch as well as encumbrance certificate in relation to 82 acres of property in the name of Smt. Thankam B.Menon and also forged encumbrance certificate alleged to be issued by the Sub Registrar Officer concerned to make the defacto complainant believe that the property is free from encumbrance and the same is fit for sale. Accordingly, they collected Rs. 30,000/-and Rs. 75,000/-on the premise of executing the sale agreement. Later, Smt. Thankam B.Menon, informed that the property is subject matter of litigation and its sale could be possible only after culmination of the litigation.

12. When forgery is alleged in regard to the documents under the Revenue Department as well as in the Registration Department, thorough investigation in this matter is necessary after arresting and interrogating the petitioners to complete the investigation of the case, in a satisfactory manner.

13. In such a case, grant of Anticipatory Bail not only fatal to the prosecution but fatal to the interest of the public at large, since public documents were alleged to be forged. The Investigating Officer, categorically reported that during investigation, it was found that the documents handed over by the petitioners herein are not genuine documents and are forged documents.

14. Therefore, this is not a fit case to grant Anticipatory Bail. Accordingly, the Anticipatory Bail plea at the instance of the petitioners cannot be considered by this Court.

15. Therefore B.A. Nos. 9093/2021 and 2927/2022 stand dismissed with liberty to the Investigating Officer to arrest the petitioners and go with smooth investigation of this case.

The interim order granted, if any, in this matter stands vacated.

Registry is directed to forward copy of this order to the Jurisdictional Magistrate and the Sessions Court for information.