IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH JANUARY 2010 / 16TH POUSHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 5983 of 2009() ---------------------------------------- CRIME NO.424/2009 OF KOLLAM WEST POLICE STATION. .............. PETITIONER/ACCUSED --------------------------------- AJITH KUMAR. G., S/O. GOPALAKRISHNAN, GOKULAM HOUSE, KOLAM WARD, PANMANA, EDAPPALLIKKOTTA.P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM. BY ADV. MR.PRATHEESH.P, MR. K.SIJU. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOLLAM WEST POLICE STATION, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.TEKCHAND. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 5983 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 6th day of January, 2010 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. 424/2009 of Kollam West Police Station. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The defacto complainant filed a complaint dated 29.07.2009 before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kollam. The complaint was forwarded to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, the crime was registered. 4. The gist of the allegations made in the complaint is the following: The accused is the husband of the de facto complainant's sister's daughter. The accused offered visa to the husband of the de facto complainant for going to Israel and collected a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- on 16.11.2008. The visa was not issued. When B.A. No. 5983 of 2009 2 the de facto complainant demanded to return the amount, a cheque was issued by the accused on 04.05.2009 and the de facto complainant was made to believe that funds were available in his account. The de facto complainant later knew that it was not a cheque but it was a cheque requisition slip. It is alleged that the accused cheated the de facto complainant and her husband. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case is a foisted one. Even in the complaint it is stated that the de facto complainant and her husband had chitty business. The counsel for the petitioner pointed out that on 02.06.2009 Annexure-I petition was filed by the husband of the de facto complainant before the Circle Inspector of Police, Chavara, wherein it is stated that a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- was borrowed by the accused from him and that it was not returned. The petition was enquired into by the police and no crime was registered as only a civil dispute was involved. 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if the case of the de facto complainant is true, it would have been mentioned in Annexure-I that a cheque requisition slip was B.A. No. 5983 of 2009 3 issued on 04.05.2009. It is also submitted that the present case of the de facto complainant is quite different from the case put forward in Annexure-I. It is pointed out that the complaint was filed by the de facto complainant only to harass the petitioner. 7. For the purpose of disposal of this Bail Application, it is not necessary to decide the points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. That is a matter for the decision at the time of trial of the case. At the same time, taking into account the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, 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. 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) The petitioner shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence. B.A. No. 5983 of 2009 4 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 ln