IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 1ST SEPTEMBER 2008 / 10TH BHADRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 5187 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.236/2008 OF KATTAKKADA POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER/ 1ST ACCUSED ---------------------------------------- SEBASTIAN JOSEPH, SREERAGAM, PIRAYIL, KURISUMUTTOM, PEYAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL RESPONDENT: STATE/ COMPLAINANT ------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------------------------------- Bail Application No.5187 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of September, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. According to prosecution, petitioner along with another person entered into an agreement with the defacto complainant's uncle, who is running a jewellery shop, and obtained gold worth 2 kg. from the defacto complainant, agreeing that share in the profit and value of the gold will be returned within a particular time. But, the petitioner failed to do so and thereby he cheated the defacto complainant's uncle. The defacto complainant is the Manager of the jewellery shop. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence. There was a raid by the Enforcement Officials and they had taken away gold and money from the jewellery shop run by the petitioner and hence, for reasons beyond his control, he could not pay the gold or money within time. There is an agreement between the petitioner and the defacto complainant's uncle and there is only a breach of terms of agreement since the petitioner could not act in terms of the agreement. There is no intention to commit any cheating, it is submitted. Learned counsel BA No.5187/08 2 for the petitioner also has drawn my attention to the allegations made in the complaint which by themselves disclose that the petitioner promised to return the money and that the money could not be paid only because the Enforcement Officials inspected the jewellery shop etc. 4. Learned public prosecutor submitted that the petitioner cheated others also, in the same way and huge quantity of gold is involved and the defacto complainant is allegedly cheated. The petitioner will be required for interrogation. 5. After hearing both sides and on going through the First Information Statement, I find that an order can be passed which will protect the interests of both sides. Hence, the following order is passed: (1) Petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within seven days from the date of this order and make himself available for interrogation. (2) Thereafter, in the event of arrest of the petitioner, if any, petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing bond for Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer on the following conditions: BA No.5187/08 3 (i) Petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation. as and when directed by the Investigating Officer. (ii) Petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation. (iii) Petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or influence or intimidate any witness or commit any offence while on bail and in case of breach of this condition, bail is liable to be cancelled. The petition is allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE csl