IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2009 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 2474 of 2009 CRIME NO.100 OF 2009 OF KADAVANTHRA POLICE STATION PETITIONERS/ACCUSED --------------------------------------- 1. SHYNU KUMAR P.K., AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.P.KRISHNAN, SHAJINS GANDHI JUNCTION, ALATHUR P.O., PALAKKAD. 2. ANIL RAJ M.K., AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.M.N.KOCHUNARAYANAN, MENON VEEDU, MEMURI P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 617. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENT: STATE -------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, (CRIME NO.100 OF 2009 OF KADAVANTHARA POLICE STATION). PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 2474 OF 2009 B ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 27th May, 2009 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are the accused persons in Crime No.100 of 2009 of the Kadavanthra Police Station. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that in certain cheques the petitioners forged the signature of the de facto complainant, who was the Managing Partner of a firm, in which the petitioners were also partners, and encashed the cheques. It is also alleged that corrections were made in certain cheques enhancing the amount shown in the cheques and the petitioners thereby committed cheating. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners wanted an audit to be conducted, for which the de facto complainant was not willing. According to them, the complaint was filed when the petitioners started another firm. 4. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, B.A. NO. 2474 OF 2009 :: 2 :: the nature of the offence and other circumstances, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the petitioners, the officer in charge of the police station shall release them on bail for a period of one month on their executing bond for Rs.5 lakhs each with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions: a) The petitioners shall report before the investigating officer between 9 A.M. and 11 A.M. on all Mondays, till the final report is filed or until further orders; b) The petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; c) The petitioners shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence; d) The petitioners shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail; e) On the expiry of the period mentioned above, the petitioners shall surrender before the Magistrate concerned and seek regular bail; f) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to be cancelled. The Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated above. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/