IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 11TH APRIL 2008 / 22ND CHAITHRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 2275 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.10/08 OF VATANAPILLY POLICE STATION PETITIONER : ACCUSED ------------------------ ZEENATH, AGED 24 YEARS W/O. MUHAMMED SUDHEER , KARUPPAM VEETTIL HOUSE P.O. VATANAPILLY, THRISSUR BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT SRI.RANJIT BABU RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. JAI GEORGE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 2275 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 11th day of April, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner is the second accused. Her husband is the first accused. They face allegations in a crime registered alleging the offence punishable under Section 420 I.P.C. The husband, while he was working abroad, sold 374 mobile phones to the defacto complainant. The first accused did not actually have authority to sell those mobile phones. He had defrauded the defacto complainant by offering the same for sale. An amount of Rs.3,50,000/- was thus allegedly taken away from the defacto complainant on the basis of such fraudulent inducement. The petitioner has come to India now. She apprehends imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent. Even accepting the entire allegations, it can be seen from the passport details of the petitioner that she was available in India and was not available at B.A.No. 2275 of 2008 2 the place of employment of her husband where the alleged cheating took place. The petitioner was arrayed as an accused with the sole intention of vexing and harassing her and her husband so that some how the matter can be settled. In these circumstances it is prayed that anticipatory bail may be granted to the petitioner. 3. The learned Prosecutor, after discussions, does not oppose the application of the petitioner, but hastens to observe that the stand taken by him may not in any way be reckoned as granting a ground for the first accused to claim regular/anticipatory bail. I take note of the submissions of the learned Prosecutor. The application for bail of the first accused can be considered when the question comes up. 4. In the result: (1) This application is allowed. (2) The following directions are issued under Section 438 Cr.P.C. (a) The petitioner shall surrender before the learned Magistrate on 21.4.2008 at 11 a.m. The learned Magistrate shall release the petitioner on regular bail on condition that she executes a bond B.A.No. 2275 of 2008 3 for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate. (b) The petitioner shall surrender her passport before the learned Magistrate. (c) The petitioner shall make herself available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. on 22.4.2008 and 23.4.2008 and thereafter as and when directed by the Investigating Officer in writing to do so. (d) If the petitioner does not appear before the learned Magistrate as directed in clause (1) above, these directions shall lapse on 21.4.08 and the police shall be at liberty thereafter to arrest the petitioner and deal with her in accordance with law. (e) If the petitioner were arrested prior to her surrender on 21.4.2008 as directed in clause (1) above, she shall be released on bail on her executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- without any surety undertaking to appear before the learned Magistrate on 21.4.2008. (R. BASANT) tm Judge