IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 5TH APRIL 2010 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 492 of 2010(B) ------------------------------------- CRIME NO.45/2010 OF NILESHWAR POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1: ------------------------------------------- M.K.SATHEESHAN, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, THERUVATH, WEAVERS STREET, NILESHWAR, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NILESHWAR POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. SRI.TEKCHAND, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 492 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 5th day of April, 2010 O R D E R When the Bail Application came up for hearing on 23.03.2010, the following order was passed: “This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.1 in Crime No.45 of 2010 of Nileshwar Police Station, Kasaragod District. 2. The offence alleged against the accused is under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The case of the de facto complainant is that he lent Rs.4,25,000/- to accused No.1. Even after one month, the amount was not repaid. The de facto complainant approached the first accused. At that time, the first accused gave a cheque dated 30.1.2009 for an amount of Rs.4,50,000/-. That cheque was given on 31.10.2008. On presentation of the cheque, it was returned on the ground of insufficiency of funds in the account of the first accused. The de facto complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is alleged that the first accused B.A. No. 492 / 2010 2 denied the signature in the cheque. The Manager of the Bank was examined as a witness in that case. It is stated that the Manager of the Bank stated that the specimen signature of the first accused (petitioner) was given by his brother (second accused) in the Bank. It is also stated that the Manager stated in evidence that the signature in the cheque does not belong to either accused No.1 or accused No.2. The allegation is that under the pretext of giving a cheque in discharge of the debt or liability, the petitioner had given a cheque containing the signature of some other person. 4. It is stated in the Bail Application that in S.T.C.No.333 of 2009 (the case initiated by the de facto complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act), the de facto complainant was examined as PW1 and during his cross examination he had categorically stated that the signature in the cheque was put by the accused therein (petitioner herein) in the presence of the complainant and that the complainant had seen the accused executing the cheque and signing the same. It is submitted that in view of the abovementioned statement made by the de facto complainant in the case filed by him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the allegation in the present case is not legally sustainable. It is submitted that the case put forward before Court B.A. No. 492 / 2010 3 and the case put forward in the present case are contradictory to each other and irreconcilable. 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that before disposing of the Bail Application, an opportunity should be given to the petitioner to appear before the investigating officer. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the petitioner to appear before the investigating officer at 9 AM on 27th and 28th March, 2010. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the order before the investigating officer. 6. Post on 5th April, 2010. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner will not be arrested until further orders in connection with Crime No.45 of 2010 of Nileshwar Police Station.” 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner has complied with the direction contained in the order dated 23.03.2010. 3. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence and other circumstances, 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 B.A. No. 492 / 2010 4 him on bail on his executing bond for Rs. 15,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions: A) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; B) The petitioner shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence. C) The petitioner shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail. D) 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 ln