IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 3RD OCTOBER 2008 / 11TH ASWINA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6043 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.268/08 OF MUSEUM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PETITIONERS ------------------------------- 1. S.PRADEEP, S/O.SADASIVAN PILLAI, AGED 34 YEARS, AREA MANAGER, BAJAJ AUTO FINANCE CO.LTD.CSI BLDG PULIMOOD JN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. VINODKUMAR.M, S/O.ACHUTHAN, AGED 27 YRS, RECOVERY OFFICER, BAJAJ AUTO FINANCE CO.LTD. CSI BLDG, PULIMOOD JN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. RITHEESH.M.P, S/O.CHATHU, AGED 27 YEARS, RECOVERY OFFICER, BAJAJ AUTO FINANCE CO.LTD. CSI BLDG, PULIMOOD JN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.S.RAJAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SI OF POLICE, MUSEUM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 6043 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd October, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. According to prosecution, petitioners, who are accused 1 to 3, allegedly committed various offences under Sections 120(b), 321, 323, 383, 384, 378 and 379 of Indian Penal Code. A crime was registered on the basis of a private complaint forwarded for investigation by the Magistrate Court. The allegation is that a vehicle was purchased by the de facto complainant after entering into a hire purchase agreement with a financing company. Petitioners are the officials of the company. Due to default in payment of instalments, the vehicle is forcibly taken away from the possession of the de facto complainant. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the allegations are absolutely false. In fact, the vehicle was surrendered de facto complainant to the company and this fact is revealed from the notice issued as early as on 18.2.2008 to the de facto complainant. It is Annexure-II. In the said notice, it is clearly mentioned that the vehicle was surrendered by the de facto complainant to the company, and the company ascertained whether the de facto complainant was prepared to take the vehicle back by BA.6043/08 2 paying the instalments. Though the notice was received by complainant as seen from acknowledgment card, Annexure-III, no reply was sent by the de facto complainant. 4. But, a complaint is now lodged alleging that the vehicle was removed by force on 12.2.2008. It is also pointed out that no complaint was filed before the police, but a private complaint was filed, that too after more than five months of the alleged incident on 28.7.2008, before the Magistrate Court, based on which a crime is registered on 30.7.2008. There is a long delay in loding the complaint though the vehicle was allegedly taken away. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that he has no objection in granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner on conditions. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. Hence, the following order is passed: Petitioner shall surrender before the Magistrate Court concerned within 15 days from today and if any bail application is filed, petitioners shall be released on bail on their executing bond for Rs.25,000/- each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate, on the following conditions: BA.6043/08 3 i) Petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation as and when directed by the police. ii) Petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation. iii) Petitioners shall not tamper with evidence, influence or intimidate any witness or commit any offence while on bail. Petition is allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.