IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2010 / 2ND ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3417 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.455/2010 OF THRISSUR WEST POLICE STATION. (S): PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 AND 2 ----------------------------------------------- 1. SUNIL C.B., AGED 44 YEARS, S/O. BHASKARAN, CHIYYARATH HOUSE, AMBALLOOR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. SATHEESH C.B., AGED 47 YEARS, S/O. BHASKARAN, CHIYYARATH HOUSE, AMBALLOOR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ALIAS M.CHERIAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANTS --------------------------- 1. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THRISSUR WEST POLICE STATION, THRISSUR. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEK CHAND. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ---------------------------------------------- Bail Application No.3417 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 23rd June, 2010. O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioners (A1 and A2) were engaged in an Internet based business and for the said purpose, they collected huge amount of money from defacto complainant, promising huge profit, but the money was not returned, nor did the defacto complainant was given any profit as promised. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that defacto complainant and various other persons formed a group and were engaged in a money chain business. Three complaints were made against some of the persons in the group and complaints were filed against defacto complainant also, as evidenced by Annexure 2 to 4. The allegations were that they had taken huge amount from certain persons etc. After filing of these complaints, the present complaint is filed by defacto complainant as a counter blast, it is submitted. Petitioners are absolutely innocent of the allegations made. There is no scrap of BA NO.3417/10 2 paper to show that petitioners received money from defacto complainant. It is also submitted that one of the accused in Annexure 2 to 4 is a Police Constable, who is working in a nearby police station. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that as per the investigation so far conducted, there is no document to show that any amount was paid, but the investigation is at the initial stage. At this stage, it may not be proper to grant anticipatory bail only on the ground that there are no documents, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides and considering the serious nature of the allegations made, I find that when the investigation is in progress, it may not be proper to grant anticipatory bail on the ground that there are no documents etc. Documents will be available only if documents are executed. Petitioners have not made out any ground to grant anticipatory bail. The mere lodging of a complaint against defacto complainant may not be sufficient to hold that this complaint is false. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. tgs