IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH DECEMBER 2009 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 7109 of 2009 CRIME NO.1264 OF 2009 OF CHALAKKUDY POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- SANJAYAN.P.K, S/O.KUNJIKUTTAN, AGED 30 YEARS, PEEDIAKKEL HOUSE, POKKULANGARA, ENGANDIYOOR VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DT. BY ADV. SRI.SHOBY K.FRANCIS RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,SI OF POLICE, CHALAKKUDY POLICE STATION, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TOWN EAST POLICE STATION, THRISSUR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 7109 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 10th day of December, 2009 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.1264 of 2009 of Chalakkudy Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 403 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The de facto complainant filed a complaint before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Chalakkudy on 26.10.2009. The complaint was forwarded to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, the crime was registered by the Chalakkudy Police. 4. The gist of the prosecution case is the following: The de facto complainant is a 'Melsanthi' in a temple. He used to make 'Elass' and lockets covered by gold to the customers. For that B.A. NO. 7109 OF 2009 :: 2 :: purpose, he used to purchase gold from Menon's Jewellery at Chalakkudy. The petitioner is a helper of the de facto complainant. He used to go to Menon's Jewellery at Chalakkudy to bring gold. On 22.7.2009, as directed by the de facto complainant, the petitioner purchased 124 gms of gold from Menon's Jewellery at Chalakkudy. The petitioner reported to the de facto complainant that the gold was stolen by somebody while the petitioner was travelling in a KSRTC bus. The de facto complainant directed the petitioner to report the matter to the police. The de facto complainant says that the investigation revealed that the petitioner had misappropriated the gold. The petitioner requested the de facto complainant to save him. He also assured to give value of the gold. Accordingly, an agreement was executed between the parties, as per which, the petitioner agreed to pay a sum of Rs.1,85,000/- as value of the gold. The petitioner did not honour the agreement and pay Rs.1,85,000/- as agreed upon. In these circumstances, a complaint was filed before the Magistrate's Court. 5. According to the petitioner, he had reported the incident of theft to the police on the same day itself. It is stated that the de facto complainant was also present in the police station. Later, the de B.A. NO. 7109 OF 2009 :: 3 :: facto complainant stated that the temple in which he is a 'Melsanthi' is a private temple and, therefore, for the purpose of accounts, it is necessary that there should be some documents to show that money will be paid instead of the gold. Accordingly, an agreement was executed. The agreement was not executed on free will of the petitioner. The petitioner had not misappropriated the gold. He is not liable to pay Rs.1,85,000/-. 6. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on 26.10.2009, the date on which the complaint was filed by the de facto complainant, the petitioner had caused to send a lawyer notice to the Circle Inspector of Police, Valappad (Annexure- A), in which it was mentioned that on three occasions, the petitioner was unlawfully harassed by the police and he was made to remain in the police station from morning to evening. It is also pointed out that he filed O.S.No.486 of 2009 before the Munsiff's Court, Chalakkudy against the de facto complainant for a mandatory injunction to return the agreement, which, according to the petitioner, was signed by him under coercion and threat. The suit is pending. 7. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner B.A. NO. 7109 OF 2009 :: 4 :: was involved in Crime No.112 of 2006 of Vadanappally Police Station for an offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. In answer, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said case was pending before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Chalakkudy as C.C.No.667 of 2006 and in that case, the petitioner was acquitted on 31.3.2009. 8. Taking into account the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case as mentioned above and in the light of the allegations made by the petitioner in Annexure-A lawyer notice that he was harassed by the police, I am of the view that this is a fit case where anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. 9. 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.15,000/- 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.A. NO. 7109 OF 2009 :: 5 :: 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; d) 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 ahz/