IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2009 / 5TH SRAVANA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 4094 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.820/08 OF KOTTIYAM POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 3 --------------------------------------------- 1. MINI, S/O.SANTHOSH, AGED 36 YEARS, GOVT.HSS VELLAMANAL, MAYYANAD, KOLLAM. 2. SARADA, W/O.GOVINDANKUTTY, AGED 62 YEARS SARADA, THEKKUMKARA CHERRY, PULLICHIRA P.O., MAYYANAD. 3. ASHA, W/O LATE SIVADASAN, STORES ISSUER, KSRTC, KOTTARAKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN SMT.RESMI G. NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTIYAM POLICE STATION. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.4094 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of July, 2009 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 in Crime No.820 of 2008 of Kottiyam Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 420, 465 and 468 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. A complaint was filed by the defacto complainant before the Magistrate's court which was forwarded to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, the crime was registered. 4. The allegation of the defacto complainant is that accused Nos.1 to 3 borrowed a sum of Rs.1 lakh from her and the first accused issued a cheque for the same. The cheque was presented. But, it was returned on the ground that the account in which the cheque was issued does not belong to the first BA No.4094/2009 2 accused and on the ground that the signature differs. The case of the defacto complainant is that this amounts to cheating and that the petitioners have committed the offences alleged. 5. The CD file does not disclose that as to whom the account belongs. It is not ascertained so far. It is also not established, prima facie, that the first accused issued the cheque in question. 6. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, 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 on their executing bond for Rs.25,000/- 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 appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; b) The petitioners shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence; c) The petitioners shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail; BA No.4094/2009 3 d) 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. It is made clear that the observations made in paragraph 5 of this order are intended for the purpose of disposal of this Bail Application and those observations shall not be treated as a finding in any proceedings. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl