IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 13TH JULY 2009 / 22ND ASHADHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 3695 of 2009 -------------------------------------------- CRIME NO.184/2009 of VANDANMEDU POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: GEORGE K. JOSEPH, S/O. K.T.JOSEPH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, VANDANMEDU DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY, PULIANMALA, IDUKKI. BY ADV. SRI.D.ANIL KUMAR RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: 1. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, VANDANMEDU POLICE STATION, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KATTAPPANA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- B.A.No.3695 of 2009 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioner, a Chartered Accountant by profession and Executive Director of Vandamedu Co-operative Society, filed this petition under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure apprehending arrest in Crime No.184/2009 of Vandanmedu Police Station, registered on the directions of the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, based on a complaint filed by the Housing and Urban Development Corporation Limited alleging an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. HUDCO had earlier filed C.C.No.21/2003 and S.T.No. 181/2006 before Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-V, Thiruvananthapuram, which were ended in acquittal. The case of the petitioner is that it was later on a private complaint was filed, which was forwarded to the police for investigation by the Magistrate and the default in repayment of the BA 3695/09 2 balance amount out of Rs.3.10 crores, less Rs.2.6 crores paid, is on acocount of the failure of the beneficiaries to remit the amount and not due to any fault of the petitioner and in such circumstances, petitioner is entitled to get anticipatory bail. It is submitted that petitioner is prepared to co-operate with the investigation. 2. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that interrogation of the petitioner is necessary in view of the allegations in the complaint and in such circumstances petitioner may not be granted anticipatory bail and even if granted, sufficient direction be issued to appear before the Investigating Officer for the purpose of interrogation. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that petitioner is to be granted pre-arrest bail in exercise of the powers under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure with sufficient conditions. BA 3695/09 3 4. In the event of arrest of the petitioner in Crime No.184/2009 of Vandanmedu Police Station, the Investigating Officer shall release the petitioner on bail on executing bond for Rs.20,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer on the following conditions: 1. Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer between 3 p.m. and 5 p.m. on every Wednesday till a final report is submitted. 2. Petitioner shall not intimidate, threaten or influence any witness and shall co-operate with the investigation. 3. Petitioner shall not leave Kerala without the permission of the concerned Magistrate. 4. The order shall prevail for one month and petitioner has to appear before the concerned Magistrate and seek regular bail. 13th July, 2009 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv