IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 19TH JUNE 2009 / 29TH JYAISHTA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 2867 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.426/2009 OF PANANGAD POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- A.R.NARAYANAN, AGED 70 YEARS, SREEPEEDAM, SOWBHAGIA NAGAR, EROOR, TRIPPUNITHARA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.B.RAMAN PILLAI SRI.R.ANIL SRI.ANIL K.MOHAMMED SRI.SUJESH MENON V.B. SRI.JOSEPH P.ALEX SRI.SHYAM ARAVIND SRI.T.ANIL KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. -------------------------------- B.A.No.2867 of 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this the 19th day of June, 2009 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.426 of 2009 of Panangad Police Station. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that the accused was recruiting students for different courses to a college in Canada. The petitioner applied. The accused received a sum of Rs.5,000/- as registration fee. Later, Rs.20,000/- was paid. The college fee was directly sent to the college in Canada. The defacto complainant did not get visa. Therefore, he could not go to Canada. According to the defacto complainant, the petitioner is bound to return the amount spent by the defacto complainant. 4. Now, the petitioner is apprehending arrest on an accusation of having committed non bailable offence. The petitioner moved a Bail Application for anticipatory bail before the learned Sessions Judge. That application was closed on the submission made BA No.2867/2009 2 by the public prosecutor that no crime was registered against the petitioner. Thereafter, it would appear that the defacto complainant filed a petition before the Inspector General of Police, which was forwarded to the Sub Inspector of Police, Panangad, and the crime was registered. In the petition dated 31.3.2009, the defacto complainant stated that appropriate steps may be taken for realisation of the amount from the petitioner. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the petitioner is aged more than 70 years and that he is suffering from parkinson disease. Annexure A certificate issued by the Neurologist is relied on to show that the petitioner is suffering from parkinson disease. The counsel for the petitioner also relied on Annexure C affidavit dated 15th July 2005 sworn to by the defacto complainant wherein it is stated that the defacto complainant knew that it was very difficult to get visa and that if he did not get visa, the petitioner would not be liable for any consequences. There are various other statements in the affidavit which would indicate that in case the defacto complainant's plan for studies in Canada did not fructify, that would not be a ground for making the petitioner liable. 6. It is not necessary to decide the validity and probative value of the affidavit stated above. Any decision or observation on BA No.2867/2009 3 the same would be prejudicial either to the prosecution or to the accused. 7. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence and other circumstances, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the petitioner, the officer in charge of the police station shall release him on bail on his executing bond for Rs.50,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions: a) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; b) The petitioner shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence; c) The petitioner shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail; e) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to be cancelled. The Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated above. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl