IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2010 / 7TH SRAVANA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3962 of 2010() -------------------------------------- CRIME NO.924/2010 OF KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION ........................ PETITIONER (S): ACCUSED --------------------------------------- SELESTIN @ PODIYAN, S/O.SEBASTIAN CHERUPUSHPAMANDIRAM, THIRUMULLAVARAM, SAKTHIKULANGARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. M.S. BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sou. K. HEMA, J ---------------------- B.A.No.3962 OF 2010 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of July, 2010 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 506(1), 294(b) IPC. and u/s.13, 17 of Kerala Money Lenders Act, 1958. According to prosecution, petitioner was conducting money lending business without license and he criminally intimidated defacto complainant and abused her in public, by insisting to repay the amount and thereby committed the above offences. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that defacto complainant borrowed an amount of Rs.30,000/- from petitioner in 2001, and she had not returned the amount. Since petitioner insisted for repayment, a false complaint of this nature is filed, anticipating that he will file criminal complaints against her. In fact, she issued a cheque also for discharge of the debt. It is pointed out that issuance of cheque and the debt are admitted in the complaint itself. Cheque is not presented to the Bank and petitioner has not taken any steps to file any criminal complaint against defacto complainant. Petitioner is not involved in any money lending business. 4. Learned public prosecutor submitted that Defacto B.A. No.3962/10 2 complainant has admitted that she owes money to petitioner and that cheque was also issued. Considering the nature of allegations made in the complaint, he reported no objection in granting anticipatory bail. 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that anticipatory bail can be granted to petitioner. 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/- with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of arresting officer on the following conditions: i) Petitioners shall report before the investigating officer as and when directed and co-operate with investigation. ii) Petitioners shall not influence or intimidate the witnesses or tamper with evidence. 2) This order will be in force only for a period of 20 days. In the meantime, whether petitioner is arrested or not, shall seek regular bail from court concerned. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Sou.