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. 3085 of 2010() ----------------------------------------- (CRIME NO.598/08 OF THALASSERY POLICE STATION, KANNUR) PETITIONER/IST ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------ MUHAMMED HANEEFA @ HANEEFA, S/O.IBRAHIM HAJI, AGED 42 YEARS, KAIRALI VILLA, MOODADI AMSOM, QUILANDY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, (CRIME NO.598/08 OF THALASSERY POLICE STATION), REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. V. TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K.HEMA, J. ------------------ B.A. No. 3085 of 2010 ----------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2010 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 409 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioner (A1), who is the Managing Director, along with another director of a jewellery cheated de facto complainant by receiving Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs only) on making false representation and thereafter misappropriating the same and by not returning the money to the de facto complainant. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that there was some difference of opinion between petitioner and another director. The latter trespassed into the jewellery shop on 26.10.2007 and took away huge quantity of gold ornaments by force. A complaint was lodged against him and a case was also registered as Crime no. 581/2007. Though a crime was registered, no investigation was conducted into those allegations. But, later, in the year 2008, the director, who is on enemical terms with the petitioner made several persons to lodge complaint against petitioner on similar allegations. B.A. No. 3085 / 2010 2 4. It is also pointed out that a company petition was filed as early as on 2007 for winding up the company. Petitioner reported before the investigating officer and divulged the relevant facts before him. It is also submitted that petitioner was in custody, in connection with another similar crime and he was granted bail on default under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioner appeared before the investigating officer and he was interrogated. There is no need for further custodial interrogation. He has no objection in granting anticipatory bail to petitioner, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is submitted. 6. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that petitioner can be granted anticipatory bail on the conditions. Hence, the following order is passed: 1. Petitioner shall, in the event of his arrest 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 arresting officer on the following conditions: i). Petitioner shall report before the investigating officer as and when directed and co-operate with the investigation. B.A. No. 3085 / 2010 3 ii). Petitioner shall not influence or intimidate any witness or tamper with the evidence. iii). Petitioner shall surrender his passport before the Magistrate Court concerned within seven days from the date of receipt of this order and if he is not in possession of the passport, he shall file an affidavit to that effect within such time. 2. This order will be in force only for a period of 30 days from today. Whether petitioner is arrested or not, he shall seek regular bail from the court concerned, within such time, in accordance with law. This petition is allowed. K. HEMA, JUDGE ln