IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2010 / 31ST ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 958 of 2010() ---------------------------- (CRIME NO.78/2010 OF PONKUNNAM POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM) PETITIONER ------------------------------ RADHAKRISHNA KURUP, AGED 57, S/O.MADHAVAN NAIR, SREELAKSHMI, VAZHOOR EAST P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.PADMANABHAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/07/2010, ALONG WITH BA NO. 980 OF 2010, BA NO. 981 OF 2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J ----------------------- B.A Nos.958, 980 and 981 of 2010 -------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of July 2010 ORDER This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under Section 420 r/w 34 of IPC. According to prosecution, petitioners (A5, A6 and A7) along with other accused induced de facto complainant and others to invest huge amounts in first accused-company by making false representations that huge interest will be paid etc. and after making the investment, no interest was given and the money received was not returned and thereby accused numbers 1 to 7 committed the above offences. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that petitioners are only investors just like the other aggrieved persons in this case. They have not done anything, joining hands with the company or the persons who are running the company. Petitioners also lost money in the transaction. Since petitioners were cheated by the company, they had filed a complaint before the Chief Secretary, Home Secretary, Registrar of Company etc. alleging the above facts and the copy of the complaint is Annexure A2. Petitioners requested for an opportunity to explain these facts to the Investigating Officer. This court directed petitioners to appear before the Investigating Officer and accordingly, they reported. B.A No.958, 980 and 981 of 2010 2 They were questioned by the Investigating Officer. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that considering the various facts and circumstances, he has no objection in granting anticipatory bail especially since petitioners are not required for custodial interrogation. They have reported before the Investigating Officer as per direction of this court and co-operated with investigation. They are thoroughly interrogated. They may be directed to surrender the passports, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that anticipatory bail can be granted on conditions. Hence, the following order is passed. (1) Petitioners shall, in the event of their arrest, be released on bail on their executing a bond for Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer on the following conditions: (i) Petitioners shall report before the Investigating Officer as and when directed and co-operate with investigation. (ii) Petitioners shall surrender their passports before the Magistrate Court concerned within 7 days from receipt of copy of this order. B.A No.958, 980 and 981 of 2010 3 (3) This order will be in force only for a period of 30 days from today. In the mean time, petitioners shall seek regular bail from the court concerned, in accordance with law, whether they are arrested or not. Petitions are allowed. K.HEMA JUDGE vdv