IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2010 / 17TH ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 4048 of 2010() ---------------------------------------- CRIME NO. NOT REGISTERED ........ PETITIONER/ ACCUSED ---------------------- ALICE SANTHOSH, W/O.SANTHOSH P.CHACKO PALLITHAZHAM, MYLADIKKARA, ANIKKADU WEST PO KOTTAYAM DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN SRI.R.REJI SMT.THARA THAMBAN SRI.B.BIPIN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT ---------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM REPRESENTING THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHATHANOOR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------ B.A. No. 4048 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of July, 2010 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, de facto complainant's sister was working abroad and her house was let out to one Varghese. He was not vacating the house and hence first accused approached the de facto complainant and offered help and asked to pay some amount to evict him. The de facto complainant gave about Rs. 4,50,000/- to first accused he did not take any steps to evict the tenant. He also did not pay back the money and hence demands were made for return of money. Therefore, a cheque was issued by the first accused's wife (A2) towards discharge of part of the amount due. But the cheque was dishonoured on presentation to the bank. First and second accused thereby committed cheating. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner has nothing to do with the transaction between de facto complainant and her husband. She only issued a cheque in the B.A. No. 4048 of 2010 2 name of the de facto complainant, under instructions of her husband. Learned counsel for petitioner also submitted that a notice was received by petitioner alleging commission of offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. No offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against petitioner, it is submitted. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the main allegations are made against first accused and, petitioner has only issued a cheque. Hence, this petition is not opposed and there is no objection in granting anticipatory bail to second accused. 5. On hearing both sides, considering the limited role of petitioner in the transaction, I am satisfied that petitioner can be granted anticipatory bail on the conditions. Hence, the following order is passed: 1. Petitioner shall, in the event of her arrest be released on bail on her executing a bond for Rs. 25,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer on the B.A. No. 4048 of 2010 3 condition that she shall report before the investigating officer as and when directed and co-operate with the investigation. 2). This order will be in force only for a period of 15 days from today and the petitioner shall seek regular bail from the court concerned within such time. This petition is allowed. K. HEMA, JUDGE ln