IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2010 / 14TH POUSHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 7805 of 2009() ---------------------------------- CRIME NO. 336/2009 OF NILESHWAR POLICE STATION ..................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3 : ------------------------------------------- 1. K.PRABAKARAN, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O. E.P.KUNHIRAMAN, VELLOOR VILLAGE, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. N.SURENDRAN, AGED 30 YEARS, RESIDING NEAR MANNUMPARATH KAVU, NILESHWAR VILLAGE, KASARGODE DISTRICT. 3. VALSAN.T.V. AGED 30 YEARS, S/O. P.CHERIYAMBU, ELAMPACHI.P.O., THRIKARIPUR VILLAGE, KASARGODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JAWAHAR JOSE RESPONDENT/STATE : -------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY SRI. V. TEKCHAND PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 7805 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 4th day of January, 2010 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No. 336/2009 of Nileshwar Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 120-B, 107, 406, 420, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The defacto complainant filed a complaint before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II, Hosdurg. The complainant was forwarded to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, the crime was registered. 4. The gist of the allegation levelled against the petitioners is the following: The de facto complainant was running a business concern. The petitioners entered into an agreement with the de facto complainant for the purpose of expanding the business. It was agreed upon between the parties that later, the petitioners would B.A. No. 7805 of 2009 2 be inducted as partners. The case is that the petitioners diverted the entire income from the business for their own use and did not share the profits to the de facto complainant. It is also alleged that the petitioners forged the signature of the de facto complainant and submitted an application before the Commercial Tax Officer and got the registration certificate in their favour. That registration certificate was subsequently cancelled. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that against the cancellation of registration, the second petitioner filed W.P.C. No.10811/2009 and as per Annexure G order dated 06.04.2009, the writ petition was disposed of directing the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal to be filed by the petitioners. The interim order passed in the writ petition was directed to be in force till the appeal is disposed of. 6. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that anticipatory bail should be granted in favour of the petitioners. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the petitioners, the officer in charge of the police station shall release them on bail on their executing bond for Rs. 10,000/- each with two solvent sureties for the like amount to B.A. No. 7805 of 2009 3 the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions: A) The petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; B) The petitioners shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence. C) The petitioners shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail. D) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to be cancelled. The Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated above. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE ln