IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2008 / 3RD ASHADHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 4034 of 2008() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO. 230/88 OF THE NALLALAM POLICE STAITON) PETITIONER --------------------------- P.M.THANKAMANI AMMA W/O. BALAN NAIR, MAYANGOTTUPARAMBATH P.O. POOVOTTUPARAMBU, CALICUT-8 BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE NALLALAM POLICE STATION, NALLALAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. M.S. BREEZ. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. ------------------------------------------ Bail Appl.No. 4034 of 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 24th day of June, 2008. ORDER Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. According to prosecution, petitioner has procured Rs.1,60,000/- and also 17 ½ sovereigns of gold ornaments from the de facto complainant assuring job to her and her sister's son in Union Bank. Later, job was not arranged and she allegedly committed cheating. Therefore, a complaint was given to the Medical College police and a crime was registered under Section 420 IPC against the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegations made against petitioner are false. The de facto complainant was an inmate of an Ashram and the petitioner is the managing trustee of a charitable trust. The de facto complainant wanted to construct two rooms attached to the Ashram in the property belonging to the trust and she was permitted to do so also. This was in 1997. The building was constructed with the funds of petitioner but later, she left the Asram. Thereafter, she started demanding the money back. The petitioner was prepared to return the money she spent but there was some dispute in regard to the actual money spent. Later petitioner agreed to return the entire amount which was demanded, but the de facto complainant was not ready to accept the [B.A.4034/08 2 same. A lawyer notice was therefore caused to be sent in March 2008, a copy of which is Annexure-C 4. It has also been submitted that as early as in 2005, the de facto complainant had filed a complaint before the City Police, Kozhikode and thereafter to Human Rights Commission, Vanitha Police Station etc. on the same allegations but all the petitions were closed finding that there was no substance in the allegations. After a long period, the petitioner filed the present complaint alleging that she was cheated by the petitioner about 15 years back in 1993. According to the de facto complainant, the amount and the gold were given in the year 1993. 4. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. Hence the following order is passed: i. The Petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer and make herself available for interrogation. ii. In the event of the arrest, petitioner shall be released on bail on her executing bond for Rs.25,000/- each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer on condition that she will co-operate with the investigation. Petition is allowed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Krs.