IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2010 / 18TH JYAISTHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3373 of 2010() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO.361/2010 OF PALLUTHY POLICE STATION) PETITIONER ------------------------------ GEORGEKUTTY C.M, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.DEVASIA MECHAEL CHIRAPPURATH HOUSE UDUMBANNOOR PO, KIZHAKKAMPADAM, THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.MANU TOM SRI.J.R.PREM NAVAZ SMT.SMITHA GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE PALLURUTHY POLICE STATION, KOCHI. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR V.TEK CHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J ----------------------- B.A No.3373 OF 2010 -------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of June 2010 ORDER This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 420, 406 and 468 of IPC. According to prosecution the first accused borrowed an amount of Rs.30,000/- from the de facto complainant in the year 2003 and for discharge of the said debt, first accused issued a cheque. The cheque which was issued in 2007 was dishonoured and a complaint was laid. Thereafter it is understood that the cheque belong to petitioner who is the nephew of first accused and both of them in furtherance of their common intention cheated de facto complainant. Hence, he filed a private complaint before the Magistrate Court and it was forwarded under Section 156(3) and a crime was registered against petitioner and another alleging offences referred above. 3. learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is absolutely innocent of the allegations made. He has not issued any cheque to de facto complainant. He has not allowed his uncle to use any cheque belonging to him. He has not cheated de facto complainant joining hands with his uncle. There is a back ground for filing the complaint . First accused, who is petitioner's uncle was conducting curry powder business in Palluruthy in the year B.A No.3373 OF 2010 2 1992 and thereafter, petitioner who is a resident of Idukki district joined his uncle in his business in 1995 and started working with his uncle. But, since 1997, he is residing separately. He left his uncle in 1997. During the stay with his uncle, he had opened an account in Palluruthy but it was not operated, after he left Palluruthy in 1997, it is submitted. 4. First accused was running business at loss and money could not be repaid towards the loan taken. Therefore, de facto complainant approached first accused and he was allowed to continue his business and he started running the business on behalf of first accused. While so, in the year 2006, the local authority intervened and business was stopped. Because of the action by the local authority, de facto complainant was offended against first accused. First accused had by then fallen mental ill but de facto complainant went to the house of first accused and threatened first accused and his wife on several occasions. He is an influential person and hewas raising threat to the life and property of first accused and his family members. Therefore, first accused's wife filed a complaint on 05/06/2007 before the Circle Inspector of Police seeking his intervention and the copy of that complaint is produced and marked as Annexure A. 5. First accused also noted that certain articles were stolen away by de facto complainant and those were in his possession. B.A No.3373 OF 2010 3 A lawyer notice was issued to de facto complainant asking him to return the articles. The notice could not be served and it was returned. Later, de facto complainant sent a notice making false allegations that an amount was borrowed by first accused and a cheque was issued etc. A reply was sent by first accused, as per Annexure C stating that the cheque was stolen from his house etc. Thereafter in the year 2008, de facto complainant filed a complaint alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against first accused and after some time it was withdrawn and a complaint was filed on 19/02/2010 before the Magistrate Court alleging offence under Section 420 and 34 IPC against the first accused and petitioner stating that they have cheated him by using the cheque of petitioner. The cheque belonging to petitioner was allegedly issued by first accused towards discharge of the amount borrowed etc. The crime was registered on 02/03/2010 and petitioner apprehends arrest. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that crime was registered on 02/03/2010, and charge sheet is already laid on 31/10/2010, as per the allegations, petitioner along with his uncle committed cheating etc. 7. On hearing both sides, considering the chronological order of the sequence of events, as evidenced by various documents produced before this court, the belated filing of B.A No.3373 OF 2010 4 complaint etc., I am satisfied that this is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail failing which petitioner will be put into irreparable injury. Hence, the following order is passed. (1) Petitioners shall surrender before the Magistrate Court concerned within seven days from today. (2) On such surrender, petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing self bond for Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate. Petition is allowed. K.HEMA JUDGE vdv