IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 1ST APRIL 2008 / 12TH CHAITHRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 1943 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.664/07 OF CHAVARA POLICE STATION APPLICANT/2ND ACCUSED -------------------------------------- HELSON ALIAS BOBBY, S/O.JOHN JEROME, AGED 24 YEARS, PUTHENTHOPPIL PADINJATTATHIL, NEENDAKARA CHERRY, NEENDAKARA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.MILTON SRI.K.J.CHACKOCHAN RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S. SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 1943 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 1st day of April, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner is the second accused. Altogether there are four accused persons. Accused 3 and 4 have already been arrested and later enlarged on bail. The first accused is said to be a juvenile at the time when the series of contumacious culpable transactions commenced. The petitioner is the husband of the first accused. The accused persons face allegations in a crime registered for offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 420 I.P.C. 2. The victims are an old couple, but very affluent. Their one son is employed in Hyderabad and the only other child, a daughter, had eloped with her lover. The old couple went into a mood of desperation. The first accused, the young daughter of a maid servant, behaved very friendly and affectionately to the old couple. Confidence and trust grew. She was like a member of the family of the couple. It is alleged that she, in collusion with B.A.No. 1943 of 2008 2 the other accused, exploited their affection and trust and deceived them with fraudulent intention. Large amounts, to the tune of about Rs. 76 lakhs, were allegedly taken away from the defacto complainant by the accused persons. The first accused had allegedly induced the old couple to believe that there was a lady with divine and magical powers, who shall see the end of all the irproblems. That person, it is alleged, was a fictitious person and amounts were taken from the old couple allegedly to satisfy the advises of that fictitious person to do poojas etc. to avoid bad luck. The petitioner had allegedly accompanied the first accused to the old couple pretending to be a representative of that alleged fictitious person. 3. Later the first accused got married to the second accused. But the old couple were not invited for the wedding and they were not given opportunity to know that the first accused is getting married to the petitioner herein. The petitioner was earlier presented before them as the representative of the fictitious lady with magical powers and accused 1 and 2 realised that if the old couple were to know that they were getting married the bottom will be knocked out of that false B.A.No. 1943 of 2008 3 theory and truth will come to light. The old couple realised the folly only long later and it is at that stage that the complaint was filed. Crime has been filed. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent. The story advanced is fanciful. No prudent mind can swallow the version of the defacto complainant without a pinch of salt. The obvious attempt is to vex and harass the petitioner. In any view of the matter, the petitioner does not deserve to endure the trauma of arrest and detention. He may be granted anticipatory bail, it is prayed. 5. The learned Prosecutor opposes the application. He submits that the allegations may at the outset appear to be fanciful. Even the Investigating Officer was not initially satisfied and convinced. Detailed investigation was conducted. It was revealed that accused 1 and 2 had suddenly started living in opulence. They had acquired large amounts and properties. They have no satisfactory explanation as to how such properties were acquired. It is after such careful B.A.No. 1943 of 2008 4 investigation that the Investigating Officer has come to the conclusion that the accused persons are actually involved in the commission of the crime and that accused 1 and 2 have misled the old couple and had siphoned out funds from them. In any view of the matter, the petitioner may not be permitted to arm himself with an order of anticipatory bail at this stage, it is submitted. 6. In the nature of the allegations raised I requested the learned Prosecutor to place the case diary. I have perused the same in detail. At this early stage of investigation I shall not embark on any detailed discussion on merit about the acceptability of the allegations raised or the credibility of the data collected. Suffice it to say that I find merit in the opposition by the learned Prosecutor. The petitioner herein is shown to come into possession of a large amount of cash for which he offered inconsistent explanation to others, including his own relatives. In one breath he explained that he had won a lottery, in yet another he is said to have advanced a story that he found abandoned money. Be that at it may, on an anxious consideration of all relevant circumstances, I am unable to perceive any features in this case, which B.A.No. 1943 of 2008 5 would justify the invocation of the extra ordinary equitable discretion under section 438 Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioner. This, I agree with the learned Prosecutor, is a fit case where the petitioner must be directed to appear before the Investigator or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the ordinary course. 5. This application is accordingly dismissed. I may however hasten to observe that if the petitioner appears before the learned Magistrate and applies for bail after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate must proceed to pass orders on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. (R. BASANT) Judge tm