IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 10TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 19TH KARTHIKA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 5745 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.599/08 OF CHALAKKUDY POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:- --------------------------------------------- SINI SAJI, AGED 35 YEARS, PUTHEVEETTIL HOUSE, ALAVI CENTRE, POTTA, CHALAKKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.C.DEVY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 5745 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th November, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 420, 468 and 471 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioner (second accused), along with her husband (first accused) allegedly mortgaged a property with the State Bank of Travancore and raised an amount of Rs.10,53,000/- as loan. Thereafter, suppressing the mortgage, they sold the property to de facto complainant. For this purpose they made fraudulent representations and deceived de facto complainant and she was persuaded to huge amount as sales consideration. Petitioners also failed to pay the bank loan and defaulted payment of instalments. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is a lawyer by profession and she was compelled by her husband to execute the documents and she is absolutely innocent of the allegations made. Her hand was amputated consequent to a train accident and because of all these, the family relationship is strained and a divorce petition was filed. Petitioner has two children in the wed-lock. On these facts, learned counsel for petitioner prays for anticipatory bail. BA.5745/08 2 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that this is a clear case of cheating, as revealed by the materials in the case diary and it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that in the nature of the allegations made, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. The physical condition of the petitioner also does not persuade me to grant anticipatory bail. 6. However, I make it clear that petitioner will be at liberty to raise all the above contentions before the trial court in a petition filed under Section 437 Cr.P.C in which these facts will be relevant. I make it clear that considerations of granting of anticipatory bail and grant of bail under Sections 437 or 439 IPC are different. The crime was registered as early as on 29.7.2008 and petitioner was not available for investigation. Petitioner is directed to surrender before the police or before the Magistrate Court concerned without delay. With this direction, petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.