IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 4TH APRIL 2008 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 2075 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.304 OF 2007 OF IRITTY POLICE STATION : PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------ BEENU M.BALAKRISHNAN, MANAGING DIRECTOR, CYNOSURE INSTITUTE, ROOM NO.102, 2ND FLOOR, D.D. MILE STONE, KADAVANTHARA, KOCHI-20. BY ADV. SRI.P.SREEKUMAR SRI.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR) RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT: ------------------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, IRITTY POLICE STATION. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAI GEORGE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ B.A.No.2075 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of April, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioner, a woman, faces allegations under Section 420 I.P.C. The crux of the allegations against the petitioner is that she runs a Call Centre Training Institution. She had allegedly received an amount of Rs.13,000/- from the defacto complainant. It was promised that call centre training will be imparted to the defacto complainant. The defacto complainant alleges that he did not get the quality of training which was expected at the time when the amount was paid. It is his grievance that he has been deceived and defrauded by the petitioner. Crime has been registered on the basis of a private complaint filed by the defacto complainant and referred to the police by the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent. The defacto complainant was given the service which the petitioner was expected to offer for B.A.No.2075 of 2008 2 him. He did not avail of such facilities and has now turned round to raise false allegations against the petitioner. It is prayed the petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor does not oppose the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that appropriate conditions may be imposed. 4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I am satisfied, that the petitioner can be granted anticipatory bail subject to appropriate terms and conditions: 5. In the result, this Bail Application is, allowed. The following directions are issued under Section 438 Cr.P.C. i) The petitioner shall appear before the learned Magistrate at 11 a.m on 15.04.2008. She shall be enlarged on regular bail on her executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate; ii) The petitioner shall make herself available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer between 10 a.m and 3 p.m on 16.04.2008 and thereafter as and when directed by the Investigating Officer in writing to do so; B.A.No.2075 of 2008 3 iii) If the petitioner does not appear before the learned Magistrate as directed in clause (i), directions issued above shall thereafter stand revoked and the police shall be at liberty to arrest the petitioner and deal with her in accordance with law as if those directions were not issued at all; iv) If the petitioner were arrested prior to her surrender on 15.04.08 as directed in clause (1) above, she shall be released from custody on her executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) without any sureties undertaking to appear before the learned Magistrate on 15.04.08. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-