IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2010 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 1323 of 2010() ----------------------------- CP.157/2009 of J.M.F.C.I,KASARAGOD CRIME NO.143/08 OF KUMBLA POLICE STATION (S): PETITIONER/ACCUSED 7 & 8 -------------------------------------------- 1. KASAYI MOIDEEN, S/O.ABDUL RAHIMAN, SAFA MANZIL, PACHILAMPARA, UPPALA, KASARAGOD. 2. MUHAMMED ANSAR, S/O.ABBAS HAJI, MANNAMKUZHI, UPPALA, KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SRI.SOJAN MICHEAL RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA,(REPRESENTED BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KUMBALA POLICE STATION) REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEK CHAND. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ---------------------------------------------- Bail Application No.1323 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 26th May, 2010. O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 120B, 341, 395, 452, 465, 468, 471 and 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioners (A7 and A8) along with other accused trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant and forcibly took away cheques etc. and committed various offences as members of an unlawful assembly, after hatching a conspiracy. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that 9th accused filed a complaint against the defacto complainant, alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in respect of a cheque carrying an amount of Rs.30 lakhs. This complaint is filed only as a counter blast to the said complaint, it is submitted. The incident is alleged to have taken place on 22.10.2007, but the F.I.R. in this case is registered only on 19.5.2008, after 8 months of the alleged date of occurrence. It is also pointed out that petitioners appeared before the BA NO.1323/10 2 Investigating Officer and they were interrogated also. Petitioners have not absconded. They were available in the locality, but they were not arrested. They have not received any summons from the court, after the charge sheet is filed. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioners were not available for arrest. Though petitioners would submit that they were questioned by the police, the records do not indicate that. However, he conceded that there is 8 months' delay in lodging the complaint. It is also pointed out that second accused filed a suit against the defacto complainant alleging that he had borrowed an amount of Rs.30 lakhs and issued a cheque etc. 5. On hearing both sides and considering various aspects, I find that it is only just and proper that petitioners are granted anticipatory bail and hence the following order is passed : Petitioners shall surrender before the Magistrate Court concerned within 7 days from today and they shall be released on bail on their executing BA NO.1323/10 3 bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate, on condition that petitioners shall not intimidate or influence any witness or tamper with evidence. Petition is allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. tgs