IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2008 / 29TH SRAVANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 5063 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.84/2008 OF KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 ---------------------------------------- BINURAJ, S/O.BIJUKUMAR, JANAKI BHAVAN, PERUMPUZHA.P.O, KUNDARA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER GEORGE RESPONDENTS: STATE ------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 5063 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 20th day of August, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 420, 468, 474, 120(b) and 411 read with section 34 IPC. According to prosecution, defacto-complainant and 1st accused are closely acquainted with each other. Defacto-complainant filed a complaint against the 1st accused's mother alleging offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Accused 1 and 2 are friends. Therefore, in pursuance of a conspiracy between them, the 2nd accused went to the house of the defacto- complainant and persuaded defacto-complainant to deposit some amount in an enterprise engaged in doing business in insurance. When the conversation was going on, defacto-complainant went inside the house to get a tea for him. 3. In the meantime, certain cheque leaves of defacto- complainant were stolen by the 2nd accused and by forging the same, a claim was made by the 3rd accused that defacto- complainant owed some amount to the 3rd accused and she had BA 5063/08 -2- issued a cheque in his favour, which was dishonoured etc. Firstly, a complaint was filed by defacto-complainant before the police against accused 1 and 2 and a crime was registered. Thereafter, she filed a private complaint also against accused 2 and 3. Investigation was going on in the crime registered, on the basis of a complaint filed by defacto-complainant before the police, while the private complaint was forwarded to the police for investigation. Now both the two cases are clubbed together and investigation is going on. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the present complaint is only a counter blast to a case filed by the 3rd accused against defacto-complainant alleging offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Defacto- complainant owed a sum of Rs.2 lakhs from the 3rd accused who is the petitioner herein and she had also issued a cheque and on presentation, the cheque bounced. According to the petitioner, defacto-complainant is doing money lending business. She wanted huge deposit and therefore, petitioner had given deposit and when demands were made to return the amount, she issued a cheque and in respect of the above cheque, an offence was committed by the defacto-complainant and hence, a complaint was filed before the Magistrate Court. Thereafter, this complaint BA 5063/08 -3- is filed making various allegations. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the first accused in this case who allegedly stole the cheque and misused the same in the name of the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court. The order is produced as Annexure-III. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that defacto-complainant is in the habit of making similar allegations and filing such complaints against persons who file complaints against her alleging offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 6. Earlier, the 2nd accused, his father and mother filed three complaints against defacto-complainant alleging offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, when the cheques issued by her in the name of these three persons bounced. At that juncture also, she came forward with the same type of allegations and filed a complaint stating that 2nd accused herein had stolen the cheques and misused the same by forging the same. The complaint was made against about eight persons. Some of them were granted bail by this Court on 4-4-2008 in B.A.nos.2023, 2033 & 2024 of 2007. In that case also, the 2nd accused herein was granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court. BA 5063/08 -4- 7. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioner will be required for custodial interrogation, since he is in exclusive knowledge of several facts relating to the offence. Therefore, a direction may be given to make himself available for interrogation and subject to that, he has no objection in granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 8. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner on conditions. Hence, the following order is passed:- (1) Petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within seven days from today and make himself available for interrogation. (2) Thereafter, in the event of his arrest, if any,he shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs. 25,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer on the following conditions:- i) The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer as and when directed. ii) The petitioner shall not intimidate or influence any witness or BA 5063/08 -5- tamper with evidence or commit any offence while on bail and in case breach of this condition, bail is liable to be cancelled. The application is allowed as above. K. HEMA, JUDGE. mn.