IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 18TH JULY 2008 / 27TH ASHADHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 4550 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO. 333/2008 OF KODUVALLY POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED ----------------------------------- NOUFAL.P.T, S/O.ABDURAHIMAN HAJEE, "PALATHADATHIL", VAVAD AMSOM, KODUVALLY P.S.LIMIT. KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 4550 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 18th day of July, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under section 420 IPC. The complaint was filed by the petitioner's first cousin alleging that the petitioner obtained Rs.2 lakhs promising to arrange a job abroad with a salary of Rs.75,000/- per month. Though the defacto-complainant went abroad and joined duty and worked, the salary was not paid by the employer and hence the defacto- complainant filed a complaint alleging that the petitioner has cheated the defacto-complainant. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the allegations in the complaint, defacto-complainant's father visited the petitioner's place on visiting visa and being convinced that a job will be arranged for the defacto-complainant, he came back to India and on compulsion from the father of the defacto-complainant, the defacto- complainant gave Rs.2 lakhs to the petitioner for arranging a job. There is no case for the defacto-complainant that the petitioner induced or forced the defacto-complainant to give the amount to the petitioner. He has given BA 4550/08 -2- the amount under compulsion from his father is the allegation in the complaint. Hence, offence under section 420 IPC will not be strictly attracted, since there is no inducement from the part of the petitioner to pay the amount, it is submitted. 4. It is also pointed out that the defacto-complainant had, in fact, obtained a job and received salary also, but he tried to get another job and he quit the job which was arranged by the petitioner. The defacto- complainant did not get any job and he came back. Thereafter, when the petitioner came to India in connection with his marriage, the defacto- complainant filed the complaint for pressurizing the petitioner to pay the money back to him. The marriage of the petitioner is fixed on 27-7-2008. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel appearing for the defacto-complainant. Learned counsel for the defacto-complainant submitted that the petitioner is working abroad and if anticipatory bail is granted, it is likely that he will abscond and hence a direction may be issued him to surrender his passport. 6. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner on conditions. Hence, the following orders are passed:- BA 4550/08 -3- 1) Petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within seven days from today and make himself available for interrogation. 2) Thereafter, in the event of his arrest, if any, he shall be produced before the Magistrate concerned in accordance with law. 3) On production of the petitioner before the learned Magistrate and if any bail application is filed, the petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs. 25,000/- with solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate on such conditions as the learned Magistrate deems fit and proper to impose. The application is allowed as above. K. HEMA, JUDGE. mn.