IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2010 / 23RD ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3772 of 2010() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO. NOT KNOWN OF CHENGANNUR POLICE STATION ) PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------- SRI.RAJAN, CHAKKALAYIL VEEDU, THITTAMEL MURI, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.HARIKRISHNAN SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM) RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHENGANNUR. 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHENGANNUR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J ----------------------- B.A No.3772 OF 2010 -------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of July 2010 ORDER This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under Section 420 r/w 34 of IPC. According to prosecution, de facto complainant was deceived by petitioners and she was made to pay Rs.14,00,000/- to them stating that he intends to start a business and that they assured that she will be given profit in business which was to be started with the money advanced. No business was started and money was not repaid. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that there was some transaction between de facto complainant and petitioner. But, be could not repay the money or redeem the gold ornaments which were pledged. But, an agreement was executed between the parties as Annexure A2 promising to repay the money in the year 2011 to de facto complainant. But, in spite of the agreement, a criminal complaint was filed. De facto complainant had also advanced an amount of Rs.12,00,000/- to another person and it was through the intervention of petitioner, that the amount was also paid back to de facto complainant. 4. Petitioner was prepared to explain his innocence to Investigating Officer and a direction was issued by this court and accordingly, he reported before the Investigating Officer and he was questioned by him. At that time, de facto complainant also appeared B.A No.3772 OF 2010 2 before the Investigating Officer and stated that the matter is settled and the money was paid and gold was returned. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that de facto complainant and petitioner had appeared before the Investigating Officer and it is reported that the matter was settled between the parties and that de facto complainant has no grievance against petitioner. Hence, he has no objection in granting anticipatory bail to petitioner. 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that anticipatory bail can be granted on conditions. Hence, the following order is passed. (1) Petitioner shall, in the event of arrest, be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) 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 investigation. (2) This order will be in force only for a period of 15 days from today. In the mean time, petitioner shall seek regular bail from the court concerned. Petition is allowed. vdv K.HEMA, JUDGE