IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2010 / 13TH MAGHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 5779 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.493/2009 OF ANCHAL POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED : ----------------------------------- KIRAN JOSE, S/O.LATE DEVASYA JOSEPH,PAVANA NAGAR, PAIKA, POOVARANY POST, PALA, KOTTAYAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH SRI.K.P.SUDHEER RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT ----------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM REP.BY S.I.OF POLICE, ANCHAL P.S, KOLLAM DIST. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.5779 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2010 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.493 of 2009 of Anchal Police Station. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The de facto complainant filed a petition to the Superintendent of Police, Kollam which was forwarded to the C.I. of Police, Punalur. A crime was registered as Crime No.890 of 2009 by Punalur police Station. Subsequently, the case was transferred to Anchal Police Station where it was re-registered as Crime No.493 of 2009. The case of the de facto complainant is that he sold rubber to the petitioner and the petitioner had to pay a sum of Rs.26,13,705/- to the de facto complainant. A cheque was issued in discharge of that liability. When the cheque was presented, it was returned on the ground that the account was closed. The de facto complainant stated that the petitioner had committed the offence under Section 420 of the BA No.5779/2009 2 Indian Penal Code. 4. The case of the petitioner is that the rubber purchased by him from the de facto complainant was supplied to Appollo Tyres. Appollo Tyres rejected the goods on the ground of the same being of substandard quality. The rubber was entrusted back to the de facto complainant. The petitioner demanded the money which he had paid to the de facto complainant. There arose a dispute between them. It is alleged that the person hired by the de facto complainant came to the office of the petitioner and ransacked his office. Though a petition was filed before the police, no crime was registered. 5. 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 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 Rs.25,000/- 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; BA No.5779/2009 3 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 bail; 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. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl BA No.5779/2009 4 K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.5779 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of October, 2009 ORDER This Bail Application was posted to 12.10.2009. On a mention made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Bail Application has been posted today. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that he requires time to get instructions in the matter and that till the next posting date, the petitioner would not be arrested. This BA No.5779/2009 5 submission is recorded. Post on 15.10.2009. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl Hand over copy to both sides.