IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 25TH AUGUST 2011 / 3RD BHADRA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 6141 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.438/2006 OF CHANGARAMKULAM POLICE STATION MALAPPURAM DISTRICT PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3 ------------------------------------------- C. SURESH BABU, DEVI SADAN, AYATHIL.P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.RAJA SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Bail Appln.No.6141 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of August, 2011 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Petitioner is accused No.2 in Crime No.438 of 2006 of Changaramkulam Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 420, 468 and 409 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. When the Bail Application came up for admission on 16/08/2011, the following order was passed: “3. The prosecution case is the following:- The de facto complainant was working abroad in Sultanate of Oman. He was convicted and sentenced for drunken driving. During that period a sum of Rupees 14.5 lakhs was unauthorisedly withdrawn from his account in the South Indian Bank, Changaramkulam branch. According to the de facto complainant, he did not issue any cheque for the purpose of withdrawal of any amount from the account. It is alleged that there arose a dispute between de facto complainant and the bank and it Bail Appln.No.6141/2011 : 2 : was settled by crediting the amount in the account of the de facto complainant. Now the bank is also aggrieved as there was unlawful withdrawal of amounts from the de facto complainant's account and the bank was forced to pay the amount to the de facto complainant. 4. The allegation is that the petitioner had presented a cheque for Rupees one lakh in his account and had withdrawn that amount from the account of the de facto complainant. Investigation reveals that the cheque for Rupees One lakh was issued by one Vijaya Kumar to the petitioner. The cheque was given to Vijaya Kumar by the father-in- law of the petitioner. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is running a small business and he had not gone abroad. He had paid a sum of Rupees One lakh for a visa to Vijaya Kumar. Vijaya Kumar could not arrange the visa. On demand the amount was paid by Vijaya Kumar by issuing the cheque. The petitioner presented the cheque in his account. 6. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the offences, I am of the view that before considering the question of granting anticipatory bail, the petitioner should be directed to appear before the investigating officer. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the petitioner to appear before the investigating officer on 20/08/2011 and 21/08/2011. Bail Appln.No.6141/2011 : 3 : 7. Post on 25/08/2011. 8. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner will not be arrested in connection with Crime No.438 of 2006 of Changaramkulam Police Station, till 27/08/2011. 9. The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigating officer in the matter of investigation and for recovery of incriminating materials, if any.” 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor that the direction in the order dated 16/08/2011 has been complied with by the petitioner. 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offences and also taking note of the fact that the direction in the order dated 16/08/2011 has been complied with by the petitioner, 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 `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.6141/2011 : 4 : a) The petitioner shall report before the investigating officer between 9 A.M. and 11 A.M. on every Monday for a period of three months or until further orders; 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