IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND JANUARY 2008 / 12TH POUSHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 8102 of 2007() ----------------------------- CRMP.3854/2007 of D.C. & SESSIONS COURT,KOLLAM CRIME NO.392/07 OF PATHANAPURAM POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED ----------------------------------- ASHARAF, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL RAHIM, NISHA MANZIL, KALANJOOR, MANKODU, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.C.DEVY RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- B.A. No. 8102 OF 2007 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of January, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner faces allegations in a crime registered under Sec.420 of the IPC. The alleged transaction took place in a foreign country. The de facto complainant had allegedly furnished articles to a shop run by the petitioner herein. The articles worth 41400 Dirhams were allegedly supplied by the de facto complainant to the petitioner herein. The petitioner herein had allegedly handed over two cheques to the de facto complainant to discharge his liability. But the petitioner transferred his business to some other person and allegedly came away to India. The cheques are still with the de facto complainant. He has not presented the same for encahsment. The de facto complainant has also allegedly raised a grievance before the B.A. No. 8102 OF 2007 -: 2 :- police in such country also. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even accepting the entire allegations, there is no element of the offence of cheating. The de facto complainant, who has the cheques with him and has not chosen to present the same, cannot be heard to complain that he has been cheated by the petitioner. The petitioner may, in these circumstances, be granted anticipatory bail, it is prayed. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor does not oppose the application and I am satisfied, in the facts and circumstances of this case, that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. In the absence of opposition, it is not necessary for me to advert to the facts and reasons in any greater detail in this order. 4. In the result, this petition is allowed. Following directions are issued under Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C: (i) The petitioner shall appear before the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction at 11 a.m. on 9/1/08. He shall be released on regular bail on his executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate. (ii) The petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer between 10 a.m. B.A. No. 8102 OF 2007 -: 3 :- and 5 p.m. on 10/1/08 and 11/1/08 and thereafter on all Mondays and Fridays between 10 a.m. and 12 noon for a period of two months. Subsequently, he shall so make himself available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer as and when directed by the Investigating Officer in writing to do so. (iii) If the petitioner does not appear before the learned Magistrate as directed in clause (i), directions issued above shall thereafter stand revoked and the police shall be at liberty to arrest the petitioner and deal with him in accordance with law as if these directions were not issued at all; (iv) If the petitioner were arrested prior to his surrender on 9/1/08 as directed in clause (i) above, he shall be released on his executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- without any sureties undertaking to appear before the learned Magistrate on 9/1/08. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge