IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2009 / 29TH ASWINA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 5281 of 2009(A) ------------------------------------------ (CRIME NO.90/2009 OF THE KANNUR TOWN POLICE STATION) .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------ 1. KIZHAKKE VEETTIL ABDUL AZEEZ, AGED 35 YEARS, SON OF EBRAHIM, KOYYODE, KADACHIRA, KANNUR. 2. KIZHAKKE VEETTIL ARIF, S/O.EBRAHIM, KOYYODE, P.O.KADACHIRA, KANNUR. BY ADVS. MR.M.RAMESH CHANDER, MR.ANEESH JOSEPH. RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI-31. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. TEKCHAND. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/10/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 5281 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 21st day of October, 2009 O R D E R When the Bail Application came up for hearing on 29/9/2009, the following order was passed: “The petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.90 of 2009 of Kannur Town Police Station, had filed B.A. No.3948 of 2009 under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the grant of anticipatory bail. That application was dismissed by me by the order dated 17th August, 2009. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 420, 468 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The gist of the prosecution case is as follows: The defacto complainant, which is a subsidiary of Kerala Dinesh Beedi Workers Central Co-operative Society Ltd. and the first accused entered into an agreement for the supply of food articles manufactured by the Society. 50% of the value of the articles was agreed to be paid by accused in advance. Certain B.A. No. 5281 /2009 2 articles were supplied. 50% of the amount was paid. The balance was not paid under the pretext that the food articles were not up to the standard prescribed by the authorities in Sharjah and that the articles were destroyed by the said authorities. The defacto complainant alleged that on enquiry made at Sharjah, it was revealed that false documents were created by the accused to make it appear that the articles supplied by the defacto complainant were not up to the standard and that those articles were destroyed. In fact, the food articles were sold by the accused in Sharjah and they were profited by such sale. 4. On the basis of the materials available in the case diary, I was not satisfied that the petitioners were entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail and therefore, I dismissed the earlier Bail Application. 5. The petitioners have approached this Court again with this Bail Application, after producing certain relevant documents. According to them, the B.A. No. 5281 /2009 3 documents produced by them would show that the articles were destroyed by the Ajman Municipal Authorities on finding that the articles fell below the standard prescribed. It is also revealed from Annexure XIX notice dated 17th January 2009 that the defacto complainant was informed about the destruction of goods. It is stated that the defacto complainant did not send any reply to Annexure XIX notice. There is no mention of the notice dated 17th January 2009 sent on behalf of the accused to the defacto complainant, in the petition filed by the defacto complainant before the police. 6. In the facts and circumstances mentioned above, I am of the view that there are additional circumstances for considering the second application for bail. At the same time, I am not inclined to grant bail straight away. Before finally disposing of the Bail Application, I am of the view that an opportunity should be given to the petitioners to appear before the B.A. No. 5281 /2009 4 investigating officer. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the petitioners to appear before the investigating officer at 9A.M. on 5th and 6th October 2009. Post on 8th October 2009. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioners will not be arrested until further orders.” 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor that that petitioners have complied with the directions contained in the order dated 29/9/2009. 3. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence and other circumstances, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the petitioners, the officer in charge of the police station shall release them on bail on their executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- each with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions: B.A. No. 5281 /2009 5 A) The petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; B) The petitioners shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence. C) The petitioners 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 scm