IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 22ND JUNE 2010 / 1ST ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3725 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.651/10 OF KAYAMKULAM POLICE STATION. (S): PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 & 2 --------------------------------------------- 1. NISHA BIJU, NITHIN VIEW, KRISHNAPURAM MURI, KRISHNAPURAM. 2. STANLEY JACOB @ SABU, EADEN VILLA (SHOWN IN FIR AS NITHIN VIEW), KRISHNAPURAM MURI, KRISHNAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KAYAMKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEK CHAND. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ---------------------------------------------- Bail Application No.3725 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 22nd June, 2010. O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, defacto complainant was induced to pay Rs.65,000/- to first accused, for the purpose of arranging a visa and he paid the money to first accused in the presence of second accused. It is second accused who had introduced defacto complainant to first accused. The visa was arranged, and defacto complainant went abroad and he was instructed by first accused to meet one Mr.Robert. He met Mr.Robert and he demanded to pay Rs.35,000/- more to him, for arranging the job. He paid the said amount also. He worked there for some time, but the job was not to his satisfaction. Hence, he returned to India, but the Airport authorities found out that visa was a fake one and hence he was arrested and detained in prison for four months, in Malaysia. His relatives spent Rs.2 lakhs to get him released from jail and thereafter, when he came to India, he filed complaint against petitioners. BA NO. 3725/10 2 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that petitioners are absolutely innocent of the allegations made. They have not received any money, as alleged. First accused is a woman and she is having a child aged 3 years. She has only introduced Mr.Robert to defacto complainant, since her husband got a job abroad through him. No offence, as alleged, is committed by petitioners, it is submitted. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that as per the case diary, it was first accused, with whom defacto complainant had transactions originally. Rs.65,000/- was given to first accused. The defacto complainant had to undergo detention in jail, since visa arranged by first accused was fake. His relatives had to spend a lot of money abroad to get him released and petitioners have cheated defacto complainant. However, it is pointed out that as far as second accused is concerned, his role is in introducing defacto complainant to first accused, and being present while money was paid to first accused. 5. On hearing both sides and on considering the various facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the allegations made, I am satisfied that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to first accused. However, in the light of the BA NO. 3725/10 3 limited allegation made against second accused, I think anticipatory bail can be granted to second accused. I am also satisfied that first accused is to be interrogated to find out the source of fake visa allegedly arranged by her. The first accused has not made out any ground to get anticipatory bail. Except a bare denial, there is nothing to probabilise her innocence. Hence, the following order is passed : (1) The prayer for anticipatory bail by first accused is rejected. (2) The second accused shall surrender before the Magistrate Court concerned within seven days from today and on his surrender, he shall be released on bail, on his executing bond for Rs.10,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate, on the following conditions : (i) He shall report before the Investigating Officer as and when directed and co- operate with the investigation. (ii) He shall not influence or intimidate any witness or tamper with evidence. Petition is partly allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. tgs