IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 6463 of 2009() ----------------------------- IN CRIME NO.256/2009 OF KUTTIPURAM POLICE STATION, KUTTIPURAM PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED -------------------------------- SALIM, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O. KUNJARE, PALAKATHADATHIL HOUSE, MALA PALLIPURAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KUTTIPURAM POLICE STATION, KUTTIPURAM, (THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM). BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.P TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 6463 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 4th day of November, 2009 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.1 in Crime No.256 of 2009 of Kuttipuram Police Station. 2. The offence alleged against the accused persons are under Sections 406, 420 and 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The case of the de facto complainant is that a car was given for the use of the accused persons on an understanding that it would be returned when the husband of the de facto complainant comes to India. The car was not returned as promised and thus the accused persons committed the offence. The case of the accused persons is that there were several transactions between the husband of the de facto complainant and the first accused. The first accused (petitioner) is employed abroad. According to the petitioner, the husband of the de facto complainant cheated the petitioner and others and defrauded them. O.S.No.49 of 2009 was filed by the 2nd accused against B.A. No. 6463 of 2009 2 the husband of the de facto complainant and the de facto complainant for an injunction restraining dispossession of the car. On 24.08.2009, as per Annexure A5 order, interim injunction was granted. It is submitted that the petition before the police was filed on 27.08.2009. The case was registered on 31.08.2009. 4. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence and other circumstances, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the petitioner, the officer in charge of the police station shall release him on bail on his executing bond for Rs.15,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions: A) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; B) The petitioner shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence. C) The petitioner shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail. B.A. No. 6463 of 2009 3 D) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to be cancelled. The Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated above. K.T. SANKARAN JUDGE kkms/