IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2011 / 1ST ASWINA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 7370 of 2011() ------------------------------------ CRIME NO. 518/2011 OF FORT POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT ..................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED : ----------------------------------- JESLIN.T.A., S/O.ABRAHAM, RESIDING AT JESLIN VIHAR, VADACODE.P.O., KANGARAPADY, KOCHI. BY ADV. SRI.RAAJESH.S.SUBRAHMANIAN SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MR.V.MANU THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ln K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------- B.A. No.7370 OF 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2011 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.518 of 2011 of Fort Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 406 and 420 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 petitioner is the proprietor of Eurasian Cable Net Work. It is alleged that the petitioner entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the defacto complainant B.A. No.7370 OF 2011 2 and a sum of `9,84,000/- was received by the petitioner. It is alleged that the petitioner claimed that his Net Work was having a particular capacity of connectivity. It is further alleged that the petitioner's concern did not really have that much capacity of connectivity and the defacto complainant was cheated. 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the dispute involved, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the petitioner, the officer in charge of the police station shall release him on bail on his executing bond for `10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions: A) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; B) The petitioner shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence. C) The petitioner shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on B.A. No.7370 OF 2011 3 bail. D) The petitioner shall cooperate with the investigating officer in the matter of investigation. E) 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. cms