IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 29TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 1211 of 2008() ----------------------------- CR.70/08 OF MATTANNUR POLICE STATION PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 AND 2 ----------------------------------------------- 1. T.K.KARUNAKARAN, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNAN NAMBIAR, TRICHIRAPPALLY, TAMILNADU, PAYYAVOOR (PO), KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. KARTHIYAYANI.K., AGED 60 YEARS, W/O.NARAYANAN, CHEETTAPARA, PAYYAVOOR, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.K.P.HARISH RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT AND STATE ---------------------------------- 1. STATE-REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICE, MATTANNUR POLICE STATION, (CRIME NO. 70 OF 2008), MATTANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. JAI GEORGE. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- B.A. No. 1211 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of February, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioners face allegations in a crime registered under Sec.420 of the IPC. The crux of the allegations is that the 1st petitioner has financial transactions with the complainant. The 1st petitioner was the agent of the complainant who was transacting in lottery tickets. Towards the discharge of liability, it is alleged that the 1st petitioner handed over a cheque to the complainant. The complainant presented the cheque for encashment. The complainant found that the cheque was returned with an endorsement that the signature varies. When he made enquries, he realised that though the 1st petitioner had handed over the cheque claiming the same to be that of himself, it was really drawn on an account maintained B.A. No. 1211 2008 of 2008 -: 2 :- by the 2nd accused – his mother-in-law. Thus, the crux of the allegations is that the 1st petitioner had induced the complainant to believe that the cheque which he was issuing was drawn on his own account; whereas it was drawn on the account of his mother-in-law. The mother-in-law is alleged to have actively colluded in having spared the cheque leaf to the 1st accused. There is a further allegation that the mother-in-law was personally present when the cheque was handed over. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are absolutely innocent. A signed blank cheque was insisted by the complainant when they entered into the transaction. The case of the petitioners is that the cheque leaf of a third party was insisted and hence the cheque of the 2nd accused was handed over to the complainant. The complainant had, without applying his mind, filled up the cheque to make it appear that it was the 1st petitioner who issued the cheque. This is how the discrepancy occurred and there was no element of cheating whatsoever, submits the learned counsel for the petitioners. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that in so far as the 2nd accused is concerned, the State does not want to oppose the application. But the application is opposed in so far as it B.A. No. 1211 2008 of 2008 -: 3 :- concerns to the 1st accused. 4. I have considered all the relevant inputs. The Case Diary has been placed before me for my perusal by the learned Public Prosecutor. I have perused the same. 5. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit in the opposition of the prayer for anticipatory bail of the 1st petitioner. I am satisfied that the 1st petitioner must be directed to resort to the ordinary and normal course of appearing before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the ordinary course. 6. In the result, this bail application is dismissed in so far as it relates to the 1st petitioner; but with the observation that if the 1st petitioner surrenders before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate and seeks bail, after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate must proceed to pass appropriate orders on merits and expeditiously. 7. This petition is allowed in so far as it relates to the 2nd petitioner. Following directions are issued under Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C: (i) The 2nd petitioner shall appear before the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction at 11 a.m. on 7/3/08. She shall be B.A. No. 1211 2008 of 2008 -: 4 :- released on regular bail on her executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate. (ii) The 2nd petitioner shall make herself available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer between 10 a.m. and 1 p.m. on 10/3/08 and thereafter 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 her in accordance with law as if these directions were not issued at all; (iv) If the 2nd petitioner were arrested prior to her surrender on 7/3/08 as directed in clause (i) above, she shall be released on her executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- without any sureties undertaking to appear before the learned Magistrate on 7/3/08. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge