IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 15TH JUNE 2010 / 25TH JYAISTHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3425 of 2010() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO.417/2010 OF CHAVAKKAD POLICE STATION) PETITIONER ------------------------------ 1. SEENATH, AGED 31 YEARS, W/O.IQBAL, PANIKKAVEETIL HOUSE, KETTUNGAL ANJANGADI, CHAVAKKAD THALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. IQBAL, AGED 34 YEARS, PANIKKAVEETIL HOUSE, KETTUNGAL ANJANGADI, CHAVAKKAD THALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.NAZAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J ----------------------- B.A No.3425 OF 2010 -------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of June 2010 ORDER This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 406, 420, 341, 323, 294(b) and 506(i) IPC. According to prosecution, first accused is an LIC agent and de facto complainant had taken an LIC policy through him. She had handed over amounts for four instalments to first accused. But, he did not remit the amount. She questioned first accused about the non-remittance on 29/04/2010 while there was a quarrel and first and second accused abused de facto complainant and assaulted her by beating with hands. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this is a falsely foisted case. First accused is a Block Panchayat member and she is running a Kudumbasree unit in her house. De facto complainant had taken a loan from the Kudumbasree unit and the amounts were not repaid and hence there was a quarrel on 07/05/2010 at the house of first accused and articles in the house were destroyed. On a complaint made by first accused, crime was registered against de facto complainant as crime No.415/2010 under Sections 447, 294(b), 506(1) r/w 34 IPC. B.A No.3425 OF 2010 2 4. On the very same day on which the said crime was registered against the de facto complainant, a private complaint was lodged by her before the Magistrate Court alleging offences against the petitioners. The said complaint was forwarded to the police under Section 156(3) and a crime was registered and the petitioners are sought to be arrested in connection with the said crime. This complaint is given only as a counter blast to the complaint lodged by first accused, it is submitted. 5. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that as per the allegations made in the complaint, petitioners have committed various offences. It is also submitted that certain documents are in the possession of the accused and those are to be recovered, for which, interrogation of petitioners is required. 6. On hearing both sides, considering the serious nature of the allegations made and the need for interrogation and recovery of certain documents, I am satisfied that this is not fit to grant anticipatory bail. For the mere reason that crimes were registered at the instance of de facto complainant and at the instance of first accused on the same day may not by itself be sufficient at this stage to hold that the present allegations are false. Investigation is in progress and as per the allegations in the B.A No.3425 OF 2010 3 present case, the incident happened a few days prior to the registration of crime No.415/2010 at the instance of first accused. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA JUDGE vdv