IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2008 / 26TH JYAISHTA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 3776 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.243/08 OF BEKAL POLICE STATION PETITIONER : ACCUSED ------------------------ 1. P.P.KUNHIKRISHNAN, AGED 39 YEARS, A2, S/O.LATE GOVINDAN NAIR, ATHIRA, BELIKOTH AJANOOR VILLAGE, KANHANGAD. 2. M.ARAVINDANKSHAN NAIR, AGED 61 YEARS, A3, S/O.SUKUMARAN NAIR, BELLIKOTH AJANOOR VILAGE, KANHANGAD. 3. M.K.BALACHANDRAN , AGED 54 YEARS, A4, S/O.KUNHUKUNHU, IYUGOTH, KANHANGAD WOUTH, KANHANGAD VILLAGE, KANHANGAD. 4. B.M.KRISHNAN, AGED 53 YEARS, A5, S/O. LATE AMBADY, KALIKADAVU, BALA VILLAGE, KANHANGAD. 5. B.K.KRISHNAN, AGED 60 YEARS A6, S/O.LATE B.K.CHANDU, BELLIKOTH, AJANOOR VILLAGE, KANHANGAD 6. BABU, AGED 40 YEARS A7, S/O.LATE SHANKARAN, DEEPA NURSING HOME, KUNNUMMEL, KANHANGAD. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, REP. BY BEKAL POLICE STATION. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------------------- B.A.No.3776 of 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of June, 2008 ORDER Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. According to the prosecution, the complaint is filed against the petitioners alleging offences under Sections 405 and 420 read with Section 34 of IPC and a crime was registered against them. As per the allegations, the first accused and the petitioners are governing body of an Educational and Charitable Trust. The accused collected an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- as deposited from the complainant, offering a post of Manager in the hospital carrying a monthly salary of Rs.7,000/-. He was given the job. But he was forced to resign it. Hence, he made request for return of the money. But the money was not returned and hence the complaint. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the first accused is the Chairman of the Trust who is closely acquainted with the defacto complainant. There was some understanding between them and the first accused had personally received some money from the defacto complainant. BA NO.3776/08 2 This fact is clear from the FIR itself. It is alleged that the money was received by the first accused, for which, the accountant of the Trust had issued a receipt, on instructions by the first accused. Thus, according to the petitioners, who are accused Nos. 2 to 7, this transaction took place behind their back by fabricating documents and hence, a General Body meeting was convened and the first accused was removed from the post of Chairman by a resolution passed by the General Body, on being satisfied all the allegations made against him for having accepted money by issuing fake document in the name of the Trust. 4. Thereafter, there was a threat to file complaint against the Chairman as well as the petitioners. The petitioners were being dragged in, deliberately, only because they are members of the Governing body of the Trust. A suit was, therefore, filed against the first accused and the defacto complainant as O.S.No.181/08 before the Munsiff Court, for a declaration that the documents created by the first accused and the defacto complainant are not binding on the Trust etc. Consequential relief of permanent injunction was also sought for, BA NO.3776/08 3 for prohibiting them from creating any document in the name of plaintiff Trust. 5. Learned public prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant were heard in detail. Both of them asserted the petitioners' involvement in the crime. But, on going through the allegations in the FIR and the other facts and circumstances referred above, I find that it is only fit to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners on conditions. Though the learned public prosecutor opposed granting of bail, it is clear from the allegations of the FIR that the specific allegations are made only against the first accused with whom the defacto complainant was acquainted with. 6. Learned counsel for the defacto complainant vehementally contended that the civil suit is filed only as a counter blast to the criminal complaint and he pointed out that both the complaint as well as the suit were filed on the same day. After having committed the criminal offence, Civil suit has been filed to wriggle out of the liability and it is also submitted that the hospital is closed. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is no closing down of the hospital but it BA NO.3776/08 4 was being handed over to another agency for running the same, in the wake of the peculiar developments which arose. 7. In the result, the following order is passed: (1) The petitioner shall be released on bail in the event of their arrest on their executing bond for Rs.25,000/- each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer on condition that they will co-operate with the investigation and make themselves available for interrogation. The petition is allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE csl