IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2008 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 1698 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NOT KNOWN WITH ALATHUR POLICE STATION PETITIONER : ACCUSED: ------------------------- MOHAMMED ABU IRFAN, AGED 49, S/O.MEERAN HAJI, DARUL FALAH, MUTHANOOR, TRIPPANACHI, MALAPPURAM, WITH OFFICE AT SRM ROAD, KOCHI-12. BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT & STATE: --------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,. ALATHUR POLICE STATION. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ B.A.No.1698 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of March, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioner faces allegations in a crime registered under Section 420 I.P.C. The crime has been registered on the basis of a private complaint filed by the defacto complainant and referred to the police by the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Investigation is in progress. 2. The crux of the allegations raised by the defacto complainant is that the defacto complainant had handed over an amount of Rs.5 lakhs in cash and an amount of Rs.7.39 lakhs by way of cheques/D.D to the accused believing his promise that he shall make visa for employment available to various persons. Visas were not made available. The amounts were not returned. In these circumstances it dawned on the defacto complainant that the petitioner's attempt was to defraud the defacto complainant. Accordingly the complaint was lodged and the crime has been registered. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent. It was only a business transaction between the petitioner and the defacto complainant. The defacto complainant is also involved in identical business. That account B.A.No.1698 of 2008 2 has got to be settled. In fact on a proper settlement of account amounts are due to the petitioner from the defacto complainant. A cheque has been issued by the defacto complainant to the petitioner also. Only as a counter blast, the defacto complainant has raised such allegations in a private complaint filed by him. In any view of the matter, the petitioner does not deserve to endure the trauma of arrest and detention. He shall co-operate with the investigators. Appropriate conditions may be imposed. The petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail, it is prayed. 3. After discussions at the Bar, the learned Public Prosecutor does not oppose the application. I have considered all the relevant circumstances. I am persuaded to agree that this is a fit case where direction under Section 438 Cr.P.C can be issued in favour of the petitioner. In the absence of opposition, it is not necessary for me to advert to facts in any greater detail in this order. 4. In the result, this Bail Application is, allowed. The following directions are issued under Section 438 Cr.P.C. i) The petitioner shall appear before the learned Magistrate at 11 a.m on 31.03.08. He shall be enlarged on regular bail on his executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty B.A.No.1698 of 2008 3 thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate; ii) The petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer between 10 a.m and 3 p.m on 01.04.2008 and 02.04.2008 and thereafter between 10 a.m and 12 noon on all Mondays and Fridays for a period of two months. Subsequently the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer as and when directed by the Investigating Officer in writing to do so; iii) If the petitioner does not appear before the learned Magistrate as directed in clause (i), directions issued above shall thereafter stand revoked and the police shall be at liberty to arrest the petitioner and deal with him in accordance with law as if those directions were not issued at all; iv) If the petitioner were arrested prior to his surrender on 31.03.08 as directed in clause (1) above, he shall be released from custody on his executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) without any sureties undertaking to appear before the learned Magistrate on 31.03.08. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-