IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH OCTOBER 2008 / 7TH KARTHIKA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6448 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NUMBER NOT KNOWN PETITIONER (S): -------------------- M.J.FRANCIS, MANAGING PARTNER, JOS ELECTRICAL SALES CORPORATION, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.G.THAMPI(SR.) SRI.V.GOPIKRISHNA SRI.G.PRIYADARSAN THAMPI RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: --------------------------- THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE CBCID AND DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE CBCID, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY D.G.P. SRI. V.G. GOVINDAN NAIR P.P. SRI. C.K. SURESH THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A. No. 6448 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 29th day of October,2008 O R D E R Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. According to petitioner, he is the Managing Partner of an establishment conducting business in electrical goods and it has a long standing. Recently, petitioner was called to the Office of the Commissioner of Police, Cochi City and when he appeared, he was directed to report before the Dy.S.P., Narcotic Cell. This happened in July, 2008. He, accordingly, reported before the Dy.S.P. Narcotic Cell and he was questioned and he gave all information available to him. Thereafter, in August, 2008, he was again called by the Dy.S.P., Crime Detachment and he appeared before him also. He was questioned by him and then released. 3. Petitioner was allegedly informed by the Dy.S.P., Crime Detachment that unless he settled the issues with Sri.P.S. Nair, he would be implicated in a non-bailable offence. He was, however, released. Thereafter, in September, 2008 he was again called by the Dy.S.P., CBCID and he appeared before him also. He was questioned by him released. He was again asked to report before the same Dy.S.P., but he did not report before him instead, he filed this petition for anticipatory bail on 13-10-2008. BA 6448/08 -2- 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is being harassed by the police and it interferes even with the conduct of his business. He is off and on directed to come to police and hence, he was compelled to file this petition. Even now, petitioner is not aware of the exact details of the allegations made against him. But, in the light of the statement made by Dy.S.P. Crime Detachment to him that he will be implicated in non bailable offence, he apprehends arrest in a non bailable offence. Petitioner has not committed any offence, but deliberate attempt is made to falsely implicate him in a non bailable offence without any basis. It is understood from the news paper reports that a complaint was sent by Sri. P.S. Nair to the Honourable Home Minister, which was forwarded to police and it is being investigated into. 5. Petitioner had some business transactions with Sri.P.S.Nair for the past 16 years. Petitioner had been financing huge amount of money to Sri.P.S. Nair for the purpose of his business in refrigerator and also investing in real estate. The understanding is that the money has to be returned with proportionate share in the profit. But, recently, a dispute arose, since Sri.P.S. Nair refused to return the money, as promised. Sri. BA 6448/08 -3- P.S. Nair has now become rich and influential and hence, with the aid of police, petitioner's image is being tarnished and attempts are being made to implicate petitioner in a non bailable offence and get him arrested. Hence, it is requested that this Court may intervene and grant anticipatory bail. 6. Learned State Prosecutor submitted that a complaint was received by Honourable Home Minister from Sri. P.S. Nair making serious allegations against petitioner relating to certain money transactions, real estate business etc. The allegations appear to be serious in nature and hence the complaint was sent to the Crime Branch for an enquiry. But no crime is registered against petitioner so far, since the allegations in the complaint do not constitute any cognizable offence, it is submitted. Since it is alleged that Sri.P.S.Nair is “cheated”, and the complaint also contain serious allegations, it is felt that an enquiry has to be conducted into the allegations. It is also submitted that after the enquiry a report will have to be given by the Crime Branch to Addl. D.G.P. and if commission of any crime is disclosed, crime can be registered under direction from the Addl. D.G.P. Till then, t petitioner will not be arrested, it is submitted. The above Submissions made by learned State Prosecutor are recorded. BA 6448/08 -4- 7. Learned State Prosecutor also submitted that the Crime Branch office is not declared to be a police station and no crime can be registered at the Crime Branch Office. Therefore, apprehension that he will be arrested in any non-bailable offence is baseless, it is submitted. It is also pointed out that even as per the allegations in the petition, petitioner did not specify that he is involved in any specific non-bailable offence and therefore, anticipatory bail cannot be granted. Section 438 Cr.P.C. can be invoked only if there is apprehension of arrest in a non-bailable offence, it is submitted. Learned State Prosecutor also submitted that police only requires petitioner to co-operate with the enquiry, especially since the allegations are serious in nature and a direction may be given to him to co-operate with the same. 8. On hearing both sides, I find that petitioner cannot be blamed in filing this petition, if what is allegedly stated to him by Dy.S.P. (Crime Detachment) is true because, it can raise a reasonable apprehension that he may be arrested in a non bailable offence. However, in the light of the submissions made by learned State Prosecutor which are recorded that no crime is registered and that the allegations against petitioner do not constitute any offence and that those are only being enquired BA 6448/08 -5- into by the Crime Branch which has no power to register a crime, I do not find any reason to grant anticipatory bail. No ground exists in fact, to grant anticipatory bail at this stage. This petition is disposed of accordingly. K.HEMA, JUDGE. mn.