IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 21ST MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 151 of 2009() ---------------------------------- CRIME NO.432/2008 OF PATTANAKKAD POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED : ----------------------------- SAJEEV @ THAMPAN, S/O. DAYANANDA BABU, SANTHA VILASAM, PATTANAKKAD, ALAPPUZHA DIST. BY ADV. SRI.NIREESH MATHEW RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT : ------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PATTANAKKAD POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. -------------------------------- B.A. No.151 OF 2009 -------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of February, 2009 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under Section 420 of I.P.C. According to prosecution, defacto complainant owns a car and this was given to petitioner on rental basis for a period of 3 months for his personal use. Though the period is over, he did not return the car and hence, the complaint. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that even as per the allegations in the complaint, petitioner is entitled to use the car until 10.09.2008. Even though the said period was over, the defacto complainant did not make any complaint for more than 3 months. He filed a complaint only on 30.12.2008 and there is no explanation for the long delay. Actually the defacto complainant owes money to petitioner by virtue of Annexure B agreement and Rs.1Lakh is to be returned to petitioner within 27.12.2008. Petitioner demanded the money back and hence, after 3 days, on 30.12.2008, the complaint is filed. It is also submitted that this court had directed B.A.No.151 of 2009 2 petitioner to make himself available for interrogation by the investigating officer to explain petitioner's innocence and he had reported before the investigating officer on 21.01.2009 but, he was not questioned by the investigating officer and he was let off. Though the case was posted from 27.01.2009 onwards, there is no instruction from the police to the learned Public Prosecutor. Hence, anticipatory bail may be granted, it is submitted. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that so far, no instruction is received and he prays for time. On hearing both sides, I do not find that any further time need to be granted for getting instructions. I am satisfied that it is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Hence, the following order is passed : Petitioner shall surrender before the Magistrate court concerned within seven days from today and he shall be released on bail on his executing bond for Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties each for like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate on the following conditions : B.A.No.151 of 2009 3 i) Petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer as and when directed. ii) Petitioner shall not influence or intimidate any witness or commit any offence while on bail. The petition is allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE pac