IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 12TH DECEMBER 2008 / 21ST AGRAHAYANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7290 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.244/2008 OF PERINGOME POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER:-2ND ACCUSED -------------------------------- DEVAKI PALAKKAL, AGED 65 YEARS, W/O. LATE APPU, PALAKKAL HOUSE, PARAPPANGADI, MALAPPURAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.MANJERI SUNDERRAJ SMT.K.K.PREETHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, PERINGOME POLICE STATION, THALASSERI, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.7290 of 2008 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th December, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC. According to prosecution, petitioner (A2) along with first accused, in furtherance of common intention cheated the defacto complainant, by persuading her to deposit Rs.65,000/- in the account of second accused for arranging a visa for him and thereby, the amount was deposited which second accused withdrew. 3. According to petitioner, she is absolutely innocent of the allegations made. First accused owed some money to the second accused and he directed the defacto complainant to deposit the same in her account and she is absolutely innocent. (At the time when the case was called on three consecutive postings, learned counsel for petitioner was absent.) 4. Learned public prosecutor submitted that petitioner cannot plead innocence since, as per the allegations, first accused made a telephone call to the second accused in the BA No.7290 /2008 2 presence of defacto complainant and she had agreed that the amount can be deposited in her account. She has a role in the offence and hence, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail considering the nature of allegations made. The crime was registered as early as on 29.7.2008 and petitioner is not available for interrogation. Hence, petitioner is directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer and co-operate with investigation. Whether she surrenders or not, police is at liberty to arrest her and proceed in accordance with law. The petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE csl