IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST AUGUST 2011 / 9TH BHADRA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 6615 of 2011 CRIME NO.760 OF 2011 OF ANCHAL POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 ------------------------------------------- SINDHU, D/O MANI, PRANAVAM, ERAM, THADIKADU P.O., VENMANIYODE, ANCHAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN RESPONDENTS: STATE & COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-31. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ANCHAL POLICE STATION-691 046. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ Bail Appl. NO. 6615 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 31st day of August, 2011 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.2 in Crime No.760 of 2011 of Anchal Police Station, Kollam District. 2. The offence alleged against the accused is under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that accused Nos.1 and 2 met the de facto complainant and borrowed a sum of Rupees Eighty thousand. It is also alleged that a cheque in the account of the husband of the first accused was given to the de facto complainant. On presentation of the cheque, it was returned on the ground that the account was closed. 4. When the Bail Application came up for admission on 22nd August, 2011, the following order was passed: Bail Appl. NO.6615 OF 2011 :: 2 :: “4. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the offence, I am of the view that before considering the question of granting anticipatory bail, the petitioner should be directed to appear before the investigating officer. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the petitioner to appear before the investigating officer on 26th August, 2011. 5. Post on 31st August, 2011. 6. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner will not be arrested in connection with Crime No.760 of 2011 of Anchal Police Station, till 2nd September, 2011. 7. The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigating officer in the matter of investigation and for recovery of incriminating materials, if any. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this order before the investigating officer.” 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor that the direction in the order dated 22nd August, 2011 has been complied with by the petitioner. Bail Appl. NO.6615 OF 2011 :: 3 :: 6. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence and also taking note of the fact that the direction in the order dated 22nd August, 2011 has been complied with by the petitioner, 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 her on bail on her executing bond for `10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) 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; 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/