IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2008 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6323 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.648/08 OF KASARGODE POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- ANILKUMAR, DELAMPADY HOUSE, P.O.MULLERIA, KARADKA PANCHAYATH, KASARAGODE TALUK & DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SOJAN MICHEAL RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 6323 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st December, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 406, 418, 420 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioner was working as Finance Manager in a company. On 12.8.2008, he was entrusted with an amount of Rs.26,311/- for obtaining a Demand Draft in favour of the company from the Evening Branch of the bank. Complainant received a phone call from accused in the night saying that he was kidnapped and the amount was snatched away by some identifiable persons. Later, it was revealed that he had made a false allegation, and misappropriated the amount and cheated the company. A private complaint was hence filed, which was forwarded to the police, based on which, a crime was registered, under the above said Sections. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner has not made any false complaint. In fact, on 12.8.2008 at about 6.45 PM, when petitioner went for obtaining Demand Draft, some persons followed him and kidnapped him. The money, cellphone, bag etc. were snatched away by them, after assaulting him. He was also threatened. He telephoned and informed the matter to the BA.6323/08 2 higher authorities on the same night. On the next day, he also gave a written complaint to the officer-in-charge, which is Annexure-I. 4. The Branch-in-charge made a report to the Development Manager, who is de facto complainant, regarding the incident as per Annexure-III. The Development Manager thereupon lodged a complaint before the Sub Inspector of Police on the very next day on getting information. Annexure-III is the complaint given to the Sub Inspector of Police, wherein clear allegations were made regarding robbery, abduction etc. Since no action was taken in the matter, de facto complainant filed a complaint to the Superintendent of Police on 18.8.2008. Copy of the said complaint is Annexure-IV. The Superintendent of Police forwarded the complaint to the Circle Inspector of Police for investigation and it is evidenced by the receipt which is Annexure-V. But, in spite of all these, no action was taken by the police, in the complaint given by the de facto complainant. No crime was also registered. 5. But, to wriggle out the responsibility in not registering the crime, and in investigating into the complaint, the present complaint is made, making false allegations that petitioner made a false complaint etc. Petitioner is absolutely innocent of the allegations made. If a proper investigation is conducted into the BA.6323/08 3 allegations made by him, correct facts will be revealed. But, instead of even registering a crime or making any investigation into the allegations made by petitioner on the same day of the incident itself and thereafter he gave a complaint in writing also to his higher authorities, on the very next day, but nothing was done in the matter and petitioner is now required for arrest in connection with the crime registered on the basis of a frivolous complaint given by de facto complainant. If petitioner is arrested on such allegations, he will suffer irreparable injury and loss and hence, he may be granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that it is true that a complaint was received in respect of the incident which took place on 12.8.2008, but on investigation, it was found that it was a false complaint. Therefore, no action was taken in the matter. The present complaint is made on the allegation that petitioner had made false allegations of kidnapping, robbery etc., it is submitted. 7. On hearing both sides and on perusal of the documents produced, it appears that petitioner made a complaint that he was abducted and robbery was committed. It also appears from the complaint itself that he made an oral complaint on the same night and thereafter in writing also. But no action was taken by the police BA.6323/08 4 in the matter. When a complaint is received, making allegations revealing commission of any cognizable offence, the police is bound to register an FIR and proceed to investigate the same. This was not done. Instead, a complaint is now lodged stating that petitioner made a false complaint. I find that it is only a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to petitioner on conditions and hence, the following order is passed: Petitioner shall surrender before the Magistrate Court concerned within seven days from today and he shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of learned Magistrate, on the following conditions: i) Petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and make himself available for interrogation. ii) Petitioner shall not influence or intimidate any witness or tamper with evidence while on bail. Petition is allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.