IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 18TH JUNE 2010 / 28TH JYAISTHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3631 of 2010() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO.393/2010 OF PETTA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM) PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- SHAMSUDHEEN, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O. MUHAMMED, MANALIPARAMBU(MADAPATTU H) KAROTTUKUNNU, MUPPATHADAM, KADUNGALLOOR. BY ADV. SMT.T.B.MINI RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANTS --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PETTA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J ----------------------- B.A No.3631 OF 2010 -------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of June 2010 ORDER This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 406, 420 r/w 34 IPC. A private complaint was filed by de facto complainant against petitioner alleging the above said offences. According to prosecution, de facto complainant was running a consultancy and making arrangements for job seekers to obtain visa and job abroad. Petitioner had sent ten persons for arrangement of visa and job. Job was arranged for ten persons in Annasban Groups of Companies for a monthly salary of Rs.35,000/-. Visa was also arranged. But, petitioner obtained money from the ten persons promising to arrange job in Aranco Groups of Companies for a salary of Rs.85,000/- per month. This was done without the knowledge of de facto complainant. Five persons went abroad but, they came back stating that job arranged was not to their satisfaction, as promised. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner used to arrange job seekers to de facto complainant, in connection with his business. De facto complainant used to collect huge amount of money from such persons and arrange visa and job. He collected huge amounts from five persons and B.A No.3631 OF 2010 2 arranged visa and sent them abroad. But, the job arranged was not as promised and hence, they came back. They wanted money to be paid back. But, de facto complainant was not willing to do it. Though petitioner himself approached de facto complainant to make necessary arrangements to give back money, he did not do so. 4. In the above circumstances, petitioner was forced to file a complaint before the Protector of Emigrant Officer to take necessary action in the matter and see that money is returned by de facto complainant to the aggrieved persons. Copy of the petition is Annexure A1. On knowing this, de facto complainant has filed this complaint making false allegations against petitioner. Petitioner is innocent of the allegations made. 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that anticipatory bail can be granted to petitioner. Hence the following order is passed. (1) Petitioner shall surrender before the Magistrate Court concerned within seven days from today. (2) On such surrender, petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the B.A No.3631 OF 2010 3 satisfaction of the learned Magistrate on the following conditions: (i) Petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer as and when directed and co-operate with investigation. (ii) Petitioner shall not influence or intimidate any witnesses or tamper with any evidence. Petition is allowed. K.HEMA JUDGE vdv