IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2008 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6952 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.206/08 OF PULIKEEZHU POLICE STATION PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO. 1 & 2 ------------------------------------------------- SAJINI, W/O. KURUVILLA VARGEASE, KOCHUPURAKKAL VEEDU, PERIGARA MURI, PERINGARA VILLAGE, THRUVALLA TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.AJITH MURALI RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSEECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.M.S.BREEZE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 6952 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd December, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioner is second accused, who is the wife of first accused. They, in furtherance of a common intention, made fraudulent representation to de facto complainant that if Rs.1,00,000/- is paid, they will return the same with interest as and when demanded and they also executed a cheque and also promissory note in favour of de facto complainant and deceived de facto complainant into a belief that they mean to repay the money that the de facto complainant may lend to them and thereby dishonestly induced de facto complainant to lend money to accused. The accused did not intend to repay the money and thereby accused cheated de facto complainant. The promissory note was executed by first and second accused jointly and cheque was executed by first accused. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the allegations are false. The allegations will constitute only a civil dispute between the parties. There is no inducement at the inception of the transaction. Therefore, no offence under Section BA.6952/08 2 415 IPC will be attracted, it is submitted. Learned counsel for petitioner also submitted that second accused is a woman and she has absolutely no role in the transaction, but only with a view to harass petitioner and her husband, her name is unnecessarily dragged into case. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioner and her husband have committed similar instances of cheating and various other persons are also cheated similarly and it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. It is also submitted that they have collected Rs.14,30,000/- from various persons and cheated them. On hearing both sides, at this stage I am not quite satisfied of the submissions made by learned counsel for petitioner on the legal aspect regarding offence under Section 415 IPC. On facts, I am satisfied of the submissions made by learned Public Prosecutor and I do not think it fit to grant anticipatory bail in an offence of this nature. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.