IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2010 / 23RD ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 2645 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.154/2010 OF PARAVOOR POLICE STATION (S): PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 ------------------------------------------- GEETHAKUMARI, W/O DHWIJENDRANATH, GEETHA NIVAS, MARUTHAN PALLY, POOYAPPALLY P.O., KOTTARAKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PARAVOOR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEK CHAND. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ---------------------------------------------- Bail Application No.2645 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 14th July, 2010. O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, defacto complainant was intending to start a business and he wanted to raise some amount. While so, petitioner, along with her husband went to defacto complainant's house and promised to raise some amount for the defacto complainant, if she was willing to sell the property. Thereafter, a few persons came to the house of defacto complainant and they saw the property. The defacto complainant was asked to pay Rs.4.75 lakhs and petitioner and her husband went to defacto complainant's house and procured Rs.4.75 lakhs from her. 3. Thereafter, the amount was not returned by petitioner. When defacto complainant approached accused 1 and 2, they informed their inability to sell the property and to repay the amount. The defacto complainant insisted for return of the money, when a cheque was issued by the accused nos.1 and 2. BA NO.2645/10 2 When defacto complainant approached the Bank for en-cashing the cheque, it was known that the account does not stand in the name of either first or second accused. Therefore, defacto complainant again approached the accused and they executed an agreement, agreeing to sell the property to the defacto complainant which stood in the name of the accused. But the property was also not conveyed and thereby accused nos.1 and 2 cheated defacto complainant. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that defacto complainant is a money lender. The first accused had borrowed Rs.2 lakhs from defacto complainant and he could not repay the amount because of financial stringency. Later, a false complaint is filed against petitioner and her husband, stating false allegations. It is difficult to believe that defacto complainant would part with Rs.4.75 lakhs, without creating any document. The first accused was remanded and bail was granted. Petitioner has no involvement in the transaction. She is implicated only as a pressure tactics. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that it will BA NO.2645/10 3 appear from the case diary that first accused is the person, who was involved in the main transaction and hence, he has no objection in granting anticipatory bail to petitioner, who is wife of the first accused. 6. On hearing both sides, the following order is passed : (1) Petitioner shall, in the event of her arrest, be released on bail, on her executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer, on the following condition : Petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer as and when directed and co-operate with the investigation. (2) This order will be in force only for a period of 15 days from today. In the meantime, petitioner shall seek regular bail from the court concerned. Petition is allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. tgs