IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND NOVEMBER 2011 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 8025 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRMP.2698/2011 of DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD CRIME NO.235/2011 OF PUDUNAGARAM POLICE STATION PALAKKAD DISTRICT .................... PETITIONER : ACCUSED : ----------------------- RAJAN, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, RESIDING AT PEECHAMPADATH, NENMENI,KOLLENGODE VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK,PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MOHANAN(PALAKKAD) RESPONDENT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.K.RAJEEV THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Bail Appln.No.8025 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of November, 2011 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.235 of 2011 of Pudunagaram Police Station, Palakkad District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 415, 417 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The de facto complainant filed a complaint before the Magistrate's Court, which was forwarded to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, the crime was registered. 4. The case of the de facto complainant is that a cheque issued by the accused in his favour was dishonoured on the ground that the “drawer's signature differs”. 5. The petitioner moved an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Sessions Court, Palakkad. The learned Sessions Judge allowed the application by the order dated 06th Bail Appln.No.8025/2011 : 2 : September, 2011 with certain conditions. The first condition was that the petitioner should report before the Investigating Officer on Mondays and Thursdays commencing from 12th September, 2011 for a period of three months or till the filing of the final report, whichever is earlier. The petitioner states that he received the copy of the order on 12th September, 2011 and therefore he could not comply with condition No.1. From 8th September, 2011 to 18th September, 2011, the court was closed for Onam holidays. On 19th September, 2011, the petitioner filed an application to modify the condition. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed that application and cancelled the bail. In these circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the petitioner, the officer in charge of the police station shall release him on bail on his executing bond for Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions:- Bail Appln.No.8025/2011 : 3 : A) The petitioner shall report before the investigating officer between 9 A.M. and 11 A.M. on all Mondays for a period of two months or until the final report is filed whichever is earlier; B) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; C) The petitioner shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence. D) The petitioner shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail. E) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to be cancelled. The Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated above. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE skj