IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND APRIL 2008 / '3TH CHAITHRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 1975 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO. 303/07 OF KODAKARA POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED ----------------- SUNIL K.GEORGE, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.GEORGE VARGHESE K., KANDAMCHIRA, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.,KOCHI-31.(CRIME NO.303 OFD 2007 OF KODAKARA POLICE STATION). BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. JAI GEORGE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- B.A. No. 1975 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of April, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner faces allegations in a crime registered for offences punishable, inter alia, under Secs.420 and 468 of the IPC. The crime has been registered on the basis of a private complaint filed before the learned Magistrate and referred by the learned Magistrate to the police under Sec.156(3) of the Cr.P.C. There were some dealings between the de facto complainant and the petitioner. That was relating to financial service to be rendered by the petitioner for the purchase of a hospital by the de facto complainant. Initially, an agreement was entered into. Some amount was paid as advance. The de facto complainant had to raise amounts to facilitate the purchase of the hospital. For that he was in need of funds. The petitioner allegedly offered B.A. No. 1975 of 2008 -: 2 :- help to procure such funds. In addition to the advance amount received when they entered into the transaction initially, further amounts were also allegedly obtained from the de facto complainant by the petitioner. The petitioner did not allegedly render the service as expected of him. There were complaints that the petitioner along with his friend was defrauding the de facto complainant. There was allegedly a talk of settlement and the de facto complainant asserts that the entire amount paid including the initial advance and the subsequent payments were returned to the de facto complainant by the petitioner/accused and his friend by two separate cheques. The cheque which was issued by the petitioner to the de facto complainant, it is now alleged, did not bear the signature of the petitioner though it is drawn on a cheque leaf issued to the petitioner by his bank to operate his account. The de facto complainant in 2007 alleged that he has now realised that the entire transaction starting in 2004 was entered into by the petitioner and his friend with fraudulent and dishonest motive. The petitioner had no bona fide intention to enter into any transaction. The whole scheme was only to induce the de facto complainant to part with money and thus cause wrongful loss to him. The complaint was filed in August 2007 of the crime which commenced in 2004. Even the B.A. No. 1975 of 2008 -: 3 :- cheque in question was dishonoured in 2004. 2. The crime has been registered. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent. It is idle to assume that the entire amount received was returned by the petitioner and his friend without insisting on any consideration. According to the petitioner, the cheque was not issued by him to the complainant for the discharge of any liability. It was misused as a blank signed cheque which happened to come into the hands of the de facto complainant. Purely civil dispute is now attempted to be transformed into a criminal offence with the sole intention of vexing and harassing the petitioner. This criminal adjudicatory process is being misused and abused and it is, in these circumstances, prayed that anticipatory bail may be granted to the petitioner. The petitioner shall co-operate with the Investigator. He shall make all necessary materials available before the Investigating Officer which, according to the learned counsel, is bound to convince the Investigating Officer of the want of bona fides in the complaint. 4. After discussions at the Bar, the learned Public Prosecutor, does not oppose the application and I am satisfied, in B.A. No. 1975 of 2008 -: 4 :- the facts and circumstances of this case, that subject to appropriate conditions anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. At this early stage of the investigation, I shall carefully avoid any detailed discussions on merits about the acceptability of the allegations or the credibility of the data collected. 5. In the result, this petition is allowed. Following directions are issued under Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C: (i) The petitioner shall appear before the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction at 11 a.m. on 9/4/08. He shall be released on regular bail on his executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate. (ii) The petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. on 10/4/08 and 11/4/08. During this period the Investigator shall be at liberty to interrogate the petitioner in custody and take all necessary steps for the proper conduct of the investigation. Thereafter the petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays and Fridays between 10 a.m. and 12 noon for a period of one month. Subsequently, he shall so make himself available for interrogation before the B.A. No. 1975 of 2008 -: 5 :- Investigating Officer as and when directed by the Investigating Officer in writing to do so. (iii) If the petitioner does not appear before the learned Magistrate as directed in clause (i), directions issued above shall thereafter stand revoked and the police shall be at liberty to arrest the petitioner and deal with him in accordance with law as if these directions were not issued at all. (iv) If the petitioner were arrested prior to his surrender on 9/4/08 as directed in clause (i) above, he shall be released on his executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- without any sureties undertaking to appear before the learned Magistrate on 9/4/08. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge B.A. No. 1975 of 2008 -: 6 :-