IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2010 / 5TH SRAVANA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3414 of 2010() --------------------------------- CRIME NO. 465/2010 0F MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ................... PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED : ------------------------------- OMANA VARGHEESE, TC 13/1287 (40), MAYFAIR, KALAKUMUDI RD., KUMARAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY SMT.K.R.RIJA RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY SRI. M.S.BREEZ PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------ B.A. No. 3414 of 2010 ----------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of July, 2010 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioner(A1) along with second accused offered to arrange visa for the de facto complainant and obtained Rs. 4.25 lakhs from the de facto complainant, but they did not act in accordance with the promise and they also failed to return the money to the de facto complainant and thereby, committed the offences stated above. It is also alleged that second accused had issued a cheque for the discharge of the amount, but it was dishonoured on presentation to the bank. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner was working only as an agent of second accused, on commission basis. He was the second accused, who had transaction with de facto complainant, as it is evident from the fact that cheques were issued by second accused for the discharge of the debt. Second accused is the person, who had arranged the flight ticket also B.A. No. 3414 of 2010 2 even as per the allegations made in the complaint. Petitioner requested for an opportunity to explain her innocence to the investigating officer and this court directed petitioner to report before the investigating officer. Accordingly, petitioner appeared before the investigating officer and she was thoroughly interrogated. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioner had reported before the investigating officer as directed by this court and she was interrogated by the police. There is no objection in granting anticipatory bail to petitioner, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that petitioner can be granted anticipatory bail on the conditions. Hence, 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 conditions: i). Petitioner shall report before the B.A. No. 3414 of 2010 3 investigating officer as and when directed and co-operate with the investigation. ii). Petitioner shall not influence or intimidate any witness or tamper with the evidence. 2. This order will be in force only for a period of 25 days from today. In the meantime, whether petitioner is arrested or not she shall seek regular bail from the court concerned, in accordance with law. This petition is allowed. K. HEMA, JUDGE ln