IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2009 / 8TH MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 222 of 2009() ---------------------------- CRIME NO.414/08 OF CHITTOOR POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED 1 & 3 -------------------------------------------- 1. ANIL FRANCIS,AGED 24 YEARS,S/O.KALATHIL FRANCIS,KALATHIL VEEDU, PUTHENCHIRA EAST, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 2. PHILOMINA FRANCIS, AGED 50 YEARS, W/O.LATE FRANCIS, KALATHILVEEDU, PUTHENCHIRA EAST, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATION HOUSE OFFICER, CHITTOOR POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.M.S.BREEZE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 222 of 2009 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th January, 2009 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence are under Section 420 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 10 read with 24 of the Immigration Act. According to prosecution, first accused promised to arrange visa for de facto complainant in UK and for that purpose, Rs.8 lakhs were received by third accused from her and all three accused committed the offences in furtherance of common intention. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that third accused is the mother of accused 1 and 2. De facto complainant is the second accused's husband's sister. Second accused had gone to Yemen and for this purpose, de facto complainant had given some financial help and some amount is due to her. But, the allegations made in the complaint are absolutely baseless. First accused was only aged 22 years at the time of filing the complaint and he could not have offered any visa to de facto complainant as alleged and it is improbable BA.222/09 2 that for that purpose de facto complainant (who was aged 44 years) would pay Rs.8 lakhs etc. The parties have come to terms and some amount was paid to de facto complainant by third accused. Therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted, it is submitted. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor conceded that as per the instructions given, a settlement is arrived at between the parties and third accused has paid Rs.1.80 lakh to de facto complainant and there is an agreement to pay the balance and hence, there is no objection in granting anticipatory bail. On hearing both sides, I find that anticipatory bail can be granted to petitioner and the following order is passed: Petitioners shall surrender before the Magistrate Court concerned within seven days from today and they shall be released on bail on their executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Magistrate Court concerned, on the following conditions: i) Petitioners shall report before the investigating officer as and when directed and co-operate with the investigation. BA.222/09 3 ii). Petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or influence the witnesses or intimidate them or commit any offence while on bail. Petition is allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.