IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN TUESDAY, THE 23RD FEBRUARY 2010 / 4TH PHALGUNA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 929 of 2010() ----------------------------------------- (CRIME NO.33/2010 OF PERAMANGALAM POLICE STATION) PETITIONER:SOLE ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------------- RAJESH THOMAS, AGED 34, S/O. K.A.THOMAS, KOONAMPLAVU HOUSE, AYYANTHOLE VILLAGE DESOM, THRISSUR. BY ADV. MR.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) RESPONDENT(S): STATE:COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REP BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PERAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. P.K.RAVIKRISHNAN THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P. BHAVADASAN, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= B.A. No.929 of 2010 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2010 O R D E R This is a petition filed under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for anticipatory bail. 2. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.33 of 2010 on the file of the Peramangalam Police Station registered under sections 406 and 408 of the Indian Penal Code. In fact, the proceedings originated on a private complaint, which was referred to investigation under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. The petitioner contends that he is innocent and he is falsely implicated with ulterior motive. According to him, at the time of joining in the establishment of the complainant, he issued cheques and after he left the employment, those cheques were misused by the employer. The petitioner contends that he has not committed any offence nor has he done any thing wrong. It is also pointed BA 929/2010 2 out that his custodial interrogation is not necessary and he will co-operate with the investigation. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the application and points out that the investigation is at the initial stage and granting of anticipatory bail may affect the investigation. 5. It is seen that the crime was registered on the basis of a private complaint, which was referred to investigation. From the nature of the allegations, it does not appear that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is absolutely necessary. More the petitioner assures that he will co- operate with the investigation. It is pointed out that the petitioner has submitted Annexure-III complaint before the Superintendent of Police regarding the cheque in the hands of the employer. Considering all these aspects, I feel that this is a fit case where the exercise of the extra-ordinary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner is justified. 6. Hence, this application is allowed as follows: 1) Petitioner shall surrender before the Judicial BA 929/2010 3 Magistrate of the First Class, Thrissur within two weeks from today and move an application for regular bail, which the learned Magistrate may dispose of the same in accordance with law. 2) If, in the meanwhile, petitioner is sought to be arrested, he shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the investigating officer. 3) Petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation as and when required by the investigating officer. 4) Petitioner shall not tamper or attempt to tamper with the evidence or influence or try to influence the witnesses. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE. mn.