IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2008 / 19TH CHAITHRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 2138 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.100/08 OF PUNNAPRA POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA. PETITIONER : 1ST ACCUSED ---------------------------- S.H. YOOSUF, S/O.SHAHUL HAMEED AGED 40 YEARS, DILKUSH MANZIL, ILIKKATTIL HOUE KAMBIVALAPPIL, KALLAZHAM P.O., ALAPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO SMT.C.M.CHARISMA SRI.N.A.SHAFEEK RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTING S.I. OF POLICE, PUNNAPRA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- B.A. No.2138 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of April, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner is the 1st accused. Altogether, there are 3 accused persons. The F.I.R. is registered alleging offences punishable under Secs.420 and 120B of the IPC. The de facto complainant is a person who has retired on superannuation from service in a private company. He allegedly had terminal benefits available with him. He was willing to invest the same in some business so that he gets reasonable returns. He had conveyed this information to his near and dear ones. The petitioner allegedly came to know of the availability of such cash with the de facto complainant and his willingness to invest the same for returns. He allegedly informed the de facto complainant that there is an avenue of investment which would ensure good B.A. No.2138 of 2008 -: 2 :- returns. One person had pledged his gold ornaments with a financier. He is not able to raise enough fund to redeem the same. If money is advanced to such person to redeem the same, that money shall fetch good returns. There is no risk involved as the amount advanced will be covered by the gold ornaments which are pledged with the financier which will be handed over to the de facto complainant. Inducing the de facto complainant to believe that such arrangement can be struck, the petitioner, who allegedly had conspired with A2 and A3, had allegedly taken the petitioner to the finance establishment of A2 on 17/3/08. A3 is the father of A2. A3 allegedly pretended to be the person who had pledged his ornaments with A2 and who is not able to raise money to redeem the pledged ornaments. It was agreed that if the liability is discharged, the gold ornaments can be handed over to the de facto complainant. 2. At the finance establishment of A2, A3, who is really the father of A2, pretended to be the customer who had pledged the ornaments with A2. The petitioner and the de facto complainant handed over an amount of Rs.2,50,500/- to A3 who, in turn, handed over the same to A2. A2 went inside the building in a feigned attempt to keep the cash inside and to come back with the gold ornaments. The de facto complainant, A1 and A3 waited B.A. No.2138 of 2008 -: 3 :- there for a considerably long period of time awaiting the return of A2. A2 did not return. The de facto complainant became panicky. He then realised that A1, A2 and A3 were only taking him for a ride to induce him to part with the cash. A2 had gone out through the back door when the de facto complainant panicked. The petitioner and A3 conveniently gave the slip and was not available thereafter. The de facto complainant in desperation went to the police and lodged the complaint on the same evening by about 7.30 p.m. The crime has been registered. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent. He does not know A2 or A3. He does not know the de facto complainant also. Totally false allegations are being raised against the petitioner in the F.I.R. In reply to queries by this Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it may be possible that there is some rivalry between the petitioner and the de facto complainant. The petitioner is thus unable to explain why a false allegation has been raised against him by the de facto complainant. 4. I am at the very early stage of grant of anticipatory bail. The allegations raised do not, in the facts and circumstances of B.A. No.2138 of 2008 -: 4 :- this case, appear to be false, vexatious or raised with mala fide intent. No circumstances have been shown to exist which can justify or warrant the invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the application and submits that the petitioner does not deserve to arm himself with a order of anticipatory bail. He deserves to be interrogated closely. Custodial interrogation is necessary. His conduct of making the de facto complainant believe that A3, who was really the father of A2, is only a customer of A2 and his later conduct of giving the slip and vanishing along with A3 clearly show that the needle of suspicion is pointed at the petitioner also. The allegation of prior conspiracy does appear to be absolutely reasonable. In any view of the matter, I am satisfied that the petitioner does not deserve grant of anticipatory bail. This, I agree with the learned Public Prosecutor, is a fit case where the petitioner must surrender before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the normal and usual course. 6. In the result, this bail application is dismissed; but with the observation that if the petitioners surrender before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate and seek bail, B.A. No.2138 of 2008 -: 5 :- after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate must proceed to pass appropriate orders on merits and expeditiously. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge