IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 20TH JULY 2010 / 29TH ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 2874 of 2010() -------------------------------------- CRIME NO. 236/2009 OF GURUVAYOOR POLICE STATION ........................................ PETITIONERS (S):/ACCUSED NO.1 & 2 ------------------------------------------------ 1. BIJU, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O. PRABHAKARAN, VAZHAPPAALY HOUSE, ERUMAPETTY, KARUVANNOOR VILLAGE, THRISSUR DIST.(ACCUSED NO.1) 2. SHABU, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O. DEVASSY, AKKARA HOUSE, LOURDE PURAM, CHEMPUKAVU VILLAGE, THRISSUR DIST.(ACCUSED NO.2) BY ADV. SRI.A.MOHAMMED RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. K.S. SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sou. K. HEMA, J ---------------------- B.A.No.2874 OF 2010 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of July, 2010 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 332 and 427 IPC. According to prosecution, defacto complainant wanted to raise Rs.15 lakhs as loan. First and second accused promised to arrange loan through 3rd accused, and defacto complainant was induced by the false representation made by first and second, accused who promised to raise loan through the third accused from the bank in which 5th accused is a Bank Manager, and defacto complainant was caused to handover the documents relating to his property to the first accused. Thereafter, a Power of Attorney was executed by defacto complainant in the name of 3rd accused for the purpose of pledging his property. But, in pursuance of a conspiracy hatched among accused 1 to 5, his property was pledged in the bank to raise loan for a construction firm run by 4th accused, which was against the terms in Power of Attorney. Rs.1.25 crores were raised as loan and defacto complainant was shown as a guarantor, even though he wanted B.A. No.2874/10 2 to to pledge the property as a borrower. Defacto complainant was given only an amount of Rs.2,57,000/-. Commission was also received by first and second accused for arranging loan. Knowing the offence committed by petitioner, he filed a private complaint and the same was forwarded for investigation and a crime was registered. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that accused 1 and 2 only introduced defacto complainant to 3rd accused for arranging loan. Except this, they have absolutely no role in the commission of any of the offences, alleged. They are prepared to co-operate with investigation and abide by any condition. The Bank Manager, 5th accused is already granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned public prosecutor submitted that case diary reveals serious allegations against petitioners. They have not only induced defacto complainant to handed over the documents, but they have also received commission from him after raising loan and cheated him. The offences are committed in pursuance of a criminal conspiracy hatched among accused 1 to 5. Petitioners' interrogation will be necessary for an effective investigation, it is submitted. B.A. No.2874/10 3 5. On hearing both sides, considering the serious nature of allegations made against petitioners and their role in the offence, I do not think this is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Granting of anticipatory bail to a co-accused by itself may not be a ground to grant anticipatory bail to petitioner, who stands on a different footing. Petitioners are bound to surrender and co-operate with investigation without any delay. 6. No further application for anticipatory bail in this crime will be entertained by this court hereafter. This petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Sou.