IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2008 / 26TH JYAISHTA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 3952 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.474/2008 OF KOTTIYAM POLICE STATION PETITIONERS: ACCUSED 1 TO 3: ----------------- 1. AMMATHAYA MAHAMAYA DEVI, AMMATHAYA MAHAMAYA DEVI TEMPLE, KIZHAVOOR CHERRY, MUKATHALA P.O., KOLLAM. 2. 2. SHAJIKUMAR, DO. 3. SUSEELAN, DO. BY ADV. SRI.T.R.ASWAS RESPONDENT: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY S.I.OF POLICE KOTTIKAYM POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY D.G.P.SRI.P.G.THAMPI THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/06/2008, THE COURT ON 16/06/2008 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 3952 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 16th day of June, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. 2. A crime is registered for offences under sections 294(b), 506(1), 420 and 34 IPC against the petitioners. As per the allegations in the complaint, defacto-complainant was driving an autorickshaw for the past four years and he was working with the petitioner as a driver. It was promised that he will be given Rs.250/- daily but, Rs.100/- alone was given. He was told that Rs.150/- each can be retained for purchasing a property for the purpose of constructing a house. Rs.150/- each was accordingly retained for the past four years. He was working continuously, but he was given only Rs.100/- per day and he was not given any other benefits. When he demanded the money, the petitioner's husbands threatened him to kill him. He, thereafter, stopped going to them. But, later he was made to redeem gold ornaments worth Rs.1 lakh, which was pledged in his name in S.B.T. Kottiyam on the understanding that the gold ornaments would be sold and the money be paid. But, the money was not paid. Rs.2,16,000/- is due to the defacto-complainant from the petitioners. BA 3952/08 -2- The 1st petitioner and her husbands who are the 2nd and 3rd accused have cheated the defacto-complainant refusing to pay the money. 3. Learned Director General of Prosecution submitted that a case of cheating is clearly made out. But, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this is a case where, even if the allegations are accepted, there is a dispute with respect to demand of wages going by the allegations in the complaint itself. 4. Learned Director General of Prosecution argued that the petitioner is originally named Vijayakumari and she is cheating the public by calling herself as Ammathaya Mahamaya Devi and she represent herself as a Goddess. She is conducting poojas and obtaining huge money, gold ornaments from the public. There is a public move against the fraudulent acts and several persons in the society are cheated by the petitioner, etc. But, the general allegations are not contained in the First Information Statement. As far as this court is concerned, there is a citizen of India before me against whom a crime is registered on the basis of a complaint. The question is whether the offences alleged are committed or not and whether the facts and circumstances warrant grant of the relief or the refusal of the same. 5. Learned Director General of Prosecution pointed out that there is a public protect against the petitioner and the public is agitating about the BA 3952/08 -3- activities of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that it is an off-shoot of a political rivalry between two groups and there is a move by the DYFI activists against the sanyasis and the people who are engaged in spiritual activities. It is submitted that the petitioner accepted a name Ammathaya Mahamaya Devi and notifications were published in accordance with law. It is submitted that the petitioner has constructed a temple in her name and in the festival, B.J.P. Leader Sri O.Rajagopal the then Minister had inaugurated the festival and hence the D.Y.F.I. workers are now against the petitioner. 6. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that this is only a case where there is a dispute in respect of wages. Hence the following order is passed:- 1) The respondent is directed to release the petitioners in the event of their arrest, if any, on their executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- each with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer on condition that they shall co-operate with the investigation and make themselves available for interrogation as and when directed by the Investigating Officer. 2) If the petitioners are required for the purpose of interrogation, notice as contemplated under section 160 Cr.P.C. shall be issued to them by BA 3952/08 -4- giving sufficient time to comply with the direction therein. 3) In case petitioners refuse to co-operate with the investigation or fail to make themselves available for interrogation, it is made clear that this order is liable to be cancelled. This application is allowed as above. K. HEMA, JUDGE. mn.