IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2008 / 15TH SRAVANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 4628 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.275/2008 OF KOLLAM WEST POLICE STATION PETITIONERS : ACCUSED 2 & 3 ----------------------------------------------- 1. ALLEN ALEXANDER AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.ALEXANDER, SIAI, VISHNATHUKAVU NAGAR, KOLLAM 12. 2. ROBIN P.RAJU, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.RAJU, PULIMOOTTIL HOUSE, KOLABHAGOM P.O., THADIYOOR, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.DILEEP P.PILLAI RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT. ----------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 4628 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th August, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, the de facto complainant, who is a doctor, is acquainted with the first accused, who introduced her to the second accused stating that the second accused will be able to arrange a seat for her daughter for MBBS course in S.R.M.Medical College, Chennai. Pursuant to this, about Rs.3 lakhs was paid to accused 2 and 3 on several occasions, directly in cash and also as deposit in the accounts. Later, the seat was not arranged and accused 2 and 3 allegedly cheated the de facto complainant. Therefore, she filed a complaint before the police and a crime is registered against the petitioners and first accused. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the only allegation made in the complaint is that the first accused introduced the de facto complainant to the second accused and it is highly unbelievable that to such a person, deposits and money to the tune of about Rs.3 lakhs will be given by the de facto complainant. Petitioners are not known to the de facto complainant. They are native of Kollam, whereas de facto complainant belongs to BA No.4628/08 2 Thiruvananthapuram. De facto complainant and her husband recently fell out and thereafter, the present case is a falsely implicated one. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioners will be required for interrogation and investigation is carried on in this case. 5. On hearing both sides, I find that the petitioners were not able to substantiate that the de facto complainant had any motive to implicate the petitioners. Unless there is any motive, it is not understood why a false complaint should be filed against the petitioners who are allegedly strangers to the de facto complainant. This petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.