IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2008 / 29TH ASWINA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6328 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO. 1369/2008 OF NORTH PARAVUR POLICE STATION PETITIONER:- ------------------------------------------ BUSHARA ALI, W/O.ALI, AGED 42 YEARS, VAYALUPADATH HOUSE, VALLAYATHU PARAMBU, THATHAPPILLY P.O., KOTTUVALLY VILLAGE, NORTH PARAVUR. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (CRIME NO.1369 OF 2008 OF NORTH PARAVUR POLICE STATION). PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A. No. 6328 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 21st day of October,2008 O R D E R Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 420 read with section 34 IPC. According to prosecution, 4th accused gave spurious gold ornaments to accused 1 and 2 and they pledged the same with the de facto complainant and obtained an amount of Rs.20,000/-. Out of this, Rs.2,500/- was given by the 4th accused to the 1st accused from which, the 1st accused gave Rs.500/- to the 3rd accused and all accused committed the offence of cheating in furtherance of common intention. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is the sister of the 1st accused. The 1st accused had inter-caste marriage with the 2nd accused, and the sisters were not in contact with each other for a long time. But when 1st accused came to the petitioner and requested her to introduce her to de facto complainant, she went along with her and introduced her to de facto complainant. Petitioner was not aware that the gold ornaments pledged were spurious and even this fact could not be identified by the Manager. 4. It is also pointed out that even as per the allegations, petitioner did not receive any money from the 4th accused, but BA 6328 /08 -2- her own sister had given Rs.500/- (But, this fact is denied). There is nothing to be recorded from petitioner. In case petitioner is arrested and detained in custody on these allegations, it will cause irreparable injury to petitioner, it is submitted. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor conceded that the money was not directly given by the 4th accused to petitioner as per the allegations in the case diary. But, according to prosecution, petitioner had also received Rs.500/-, in furtherance of common intention to commit the offence. It is also submitted that no recovery is to be effected from petitioner. 6. On hearing both sides, I find that anticipatory bail can be granted to petitioner. 7. Hence, the following order is passed:- (1) Petitioner shall surrender before the Magistrate court concerned within seven days from today and she shall be released on bail, on her executing a bond for Rs. 25,000/- with two solvent sureties each, for the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate, on the following conditions:- i) Petitioner shall report before the BA 6328 /08 -3- Investigating Officer as and when directed and co-operate with the investigation. ii) Petitioner shall not intimidate or influence any witness or tamper with evidence or commit any offence while on bail. This petition is allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. mn.