IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2009 / 20TH JYAISHTA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 2518 of 2009 CRIME NO.236 OF 2009 OF GURUVAYOOR POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.5 ------------------------------------------- T.S. BALASWAMY PILLAI, S/O. SIVASANKARA PILLAI, ANJALI, T.P.ROAD,EDAPPALLY, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP SRI.N.RAGHURAJ RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 2518 OF 2009 F ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 10th June, 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.5 in Crime No.236 of 2009 of Guruvayoor Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 120(B), 406, 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 474 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The petitioner was the Manager of Union Bank of India, Alappuzha Branch at the relevant time. The de facto complainant filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Chavakkad, which was forwarded to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, the crime was registered. The de facto complainant, Sri.Balakrishnan, is the owner of an item of property at Kottapadi. It is stated in the complaint that he wanted to take a loan, for which, accused Nos.1 and 2 promised help. The third accused is the proprietor of M/s.Vijaya Constructions, who wanted to avail a loan for certain purposes. The petitioner executed a power of attorney in favour of accused No.3 empowering him to take loan for M/s.Vijaya B.A. NO. 2518 OF 2009 :: 2 :: Constructions. The allegation is that, as agreed between the parties, the de facto complainant did not get loan in his favour. It is also alleged that, in violation of the terms of the power of attorney, the third accused offered the property belonging to the petitioner as security for a huge amount of loan taken by the fourth accused, who is the proprietor of M/s.Ahalya Constructions and thereby the de facto complainant was cheated. It is alleged that there is no privity of contract between the de facto complainant and the fourth accused and that there was no power vested in the third accused to offer the property of the petitioner as security for the loan availed by the fourth accused from the Union Bank of India. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Union Bank of India granted loan to the fourth accused on the basis of the legal opinion obtained by the Bank and also on the basis of a bond executed by the de facto complainant. 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.50,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions: B.A. NO. 2518 OF 2009 :: 3 :: 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. The Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated above. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/