IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 2ND ASWINA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 5887 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.393/2008 OF FORT POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED (A4):- --------------------------------------------- BINDHU, D/O SUBHADRA, AKIL BHAVAN, KUZHINJAMVILA, POOVAR P.O. BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------------------------- B.A.No.5887 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of September, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 420, 416 and 120(B) read with Section 34 IPC. According to prosecution, the defacto complainant entered into an agreement with the first and the second accused for the sale of a petromax. Thereafter, A1 to A4 deceived the defacto complainant by false representations stating that Rs.5 lakhs would be required as deposit for obtaining permission from the Central Government. Rs.5 lakhs was advanced by the defacto complainant and the said amount was misappropriated by A1 to A4 for the purchase of a property. Neither the sanction was not obtained nor the money was returned. Hence, a complaint was filed before the Magistrate court concerned. It was forwarded to the police and a crime was registered. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the property was purchased by the first accused in the name of his BA No.5887/08 2 wife, who is the petitioner herein. She has nothing to do with the offence. The first accused and the petitioner has fallen apart and a divorce petition is filed before the Family Court. Petitioner is made an accused only because the property stands in her name, it is submitted. 4. Learned public prosecutor submitted that as per the allegations made, petitioner had also a role in deceiving the defacto complainant by making false representation that permission would be required from the Central Government for which deposit of Rs.5 lakhs is required etc. It is by using this amount, which is advanced by the defacto complainant that the property was purchased in the name of the petitioner as well. However, learned public prosecutor submitted that he has no objection in granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner, but, it may be made clear that this order will not be a ground for other accused, who stand differently, to obtain anticipatory bail. Hence, the following order is passed: (1) Petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer and in case of her arrest, she will be released on bail on her executing bond for Rs.25,000/- with two BA No.5887/08 3 solvent sureties each for like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer on the following conditions: (i) Petitioner shall make herself available for interrogation as and when directed by the Investigating Officer. (ii) Petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation. (2) It is made clear that this order will not entail to the benefit of the other accused to get anticipatory bail. The petition is allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE csl