IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2009 / 24TH POUSHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7674 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.15652008 OF CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- DR. I.A.RAJAN,S/O.K.APPU, AGED 40 YEARS, ITHIKKATTU HOUSE,D.S.ROAD,VADANAPPALLY, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.NIREESH MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STAET OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR BY P.P. SRI.C.M.KAMMAPPU THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 7674 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th January, 2009 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 406, 420, 120B & 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, first accused availed of a loan from de facto complainant, a financing company, for the purchase of a car and accused 1 to 4 executed an agreement also on 15.10.2007. Petitioner is third accused, who stood as a surety for accused. The allegation is that they did not remit the hire purchase amount. Second accused deposited forged title deeds with de facto complainant whereby the latter sustained financial loss. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner's role in the entire transaction is that he stood as a surety. His liability is limited to the agreement. He is a veterinary surgeon. He stood as a surety only because the financier insisted for a government servant. But, now petitioner is implicated as an accused in a non-bailable offence and if petitioner is arrested and remanded he will suffer irreparable BA.7854/08 2 injury and loss, it is submitted. It is also submitted that petitioner has no criminal antecedents. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that as per the prosecution allegation, the hire purchase amount was not repaid after taking loan and thereby de facto complainant was cheated. On hearing both sides, I find that anticipatory bail can be granted to petitioner and the following order is passed: Petitioner shall surrender before the Magistrate Court concerned within seven days from today and he shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Magistrate Court concerned, on the following conditions: i) Petitioner shall report before the investigating officer as and when directed and co-operate with the investigation. iii). Petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or influence the witnesses or intimidate them or commit any offence while on bail. Petition is allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.