IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2008 / 29TH ASWINA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6264 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO. 765/2008 OF KANNUR TOWN POLICE STATION PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 4:- ------------------------------ 1. V.M.BABURAJ, S/O.MADHAVAN, AGED 44 YEARS VADAKKE MURIYIL VEEDU,ALAKKODE VIA, P.O.MANAKKADAVU,TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. JITHESH BABU.A, S/O. DEVI, AGED 30 YEARS, KOYILERIAN HOUSE, PARAKKADAVU PO ANJAMPEEDIKA, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. V.V.KRISHNA KUMAR,S/O.KRISHNA MARAR AGED 46 YEARS, KRISHNA BHAVAN, PO CHELERI, KANNADIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT. 4. BALAKRISHNAN.K.K.,S/O.K.K.KRISHNAN AGED 55 YEARS, KUZHAPPERI KIZHAKKEVEETTIL, P.O.PATTUVAM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.SATHEESH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATION HOUSE OFFICER, TALIPARAMBA POLICE STATION, (CRIME NO,765/2008 OF KANNUR TOWN POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT)REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A. No. 6264 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 21st day of October,2008 O R D E R Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 406, 420 read with section 34 IPC. According to the prosecution, 1st accused is the Managing Trustee and accused 2 to 4 are directors of Suraksha Services and Marketing Corporation. De facto complainant entered into an agreement of dealership with accused and Rs.1,00,000/- was deposited, though the products having worth of Rs.60,000/- were handed over to de facto complainant. Petitioners, thereafter, did not give back the money or give the products to de facto complainant. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there was a business transaction between de facto complainant and petitioner, and an agreement was also executed. There was a settlement before the police between the parties in respect of the allegations made in the complaint as evidenced by Anneuxre-A5, and petitioners had agreed to pay back Rs.53,000/- to de facto complainant. Petitioners refused to give the products only because de facto complainant did not sell products given to him BA 6264/08 -2- by petitioners. But, he entered into an agreement with other companies and he sold only the products of the other companies. Petitioners are prepared to give back the money due to de facto complainant. 4. On hearing both sides I find that anticipatory bail can be granted on conditions. 5. Hence, the following order is passed:- (1) Petitioners shall surrender before the Magistrate court concerned within 15 days from today and they shall be released on bail, on their executing a bond for Rs. 25,000/-each with two solvent sureties each, for the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate, on the following conditions:- i) Petitioners shall report before the Investigating Officer as and when directed and co-operate with the investigation. ii) Petitioners shall produce before the Magistrate Court concerned Fixed Deposit receipt for an amount of BA 6264/08 -3- Rs.53,000/- in the name of de facto complainant within 15 days from today. The said receipt shall not be handed over to de facto complainant, unless the offence is compounded or the case is referred. Permission from this Court shall also be obtained for getting the receipt by de facto complainant. iii) Petitioners shall not commit any offence while on bail. This petition is allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. mn.