IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2009 / 30TH POUSHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 224 of 2009() ---------------------------- CMP.4708/2008 of C.J.M.,KASARAGOD CRIME NO.907/08 OF KASARAGOD POLICE STATION PEITIONER/ACCUSED ------------------------------------- T.P.ABDUL NAZAR,S/O.T.P.MAHIN,THEKKIL FERRY P.O.,KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM KOCHI-31. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.M.S.BREEZE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 224 of 2009 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th January, 2009 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioner entrusted Rs.5.24 lakhs with de facto complainant on the understanding that interest will be paid and the profit in the business will also be given to him. But the amount was not returned and no profit was also given. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that as per the allegations, the transaction took place in the year 1999-2000 and the complaint is filed at a belated stage in the year 2008. It is also pointed out that earlier also he was filing some criminal complaint in respect of the same transaction using a cheque, which is alleged to have been given by petitioner to de facto complainant. He lodged the complaint and petitioner was acquitted in the case as per Annexure-A5. Later, another complaint was filed in the year 2007 against petitioner in respect of the same transaction relating to Rs.5.24 lakhs and BA.224/09 2 the police conducted an investigation into the crime and referred the case as evidenced by Annexure A6. Thereafter, a private complaint was filed and it was dismissed as per Annexure A7 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, since the complaint was not pressed. Petitioner has again filed the present complaint in respect of the same transaction. Hence, anticipatory bail may be granted, it is submitted. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that he has no objection in granting anticipatory bail. On hearing both sides, I find that anticipatory bail can be granted to petitioner and the following order is passed: Petitioner shall surrender before the Magistrate Court concerned within seven days from today and he shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Magistrate Court concerned, on the following conditions: i) Petitioner shall report before the investigating officer as and when directed and co-operate with the investigation. BA.224/09 3 ii). Petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail. Petition is allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.