IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 14TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 23RD KARTHIKA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6171 of 2008() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO.1159/2008 OF KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION) PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO1 ------------------------------------------ SIBI SUKUMARAN, S/O. SUKUMARAN, SURABHI, ULIYAKOVIL, ASRAMAM, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): STATE -------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S. SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------------- Bail Appl.No. 6171 of 2008 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of November, 2008. ORDER Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 420, 380, 120B, read with Section 34 of IPC. According to prosecution, accused 1 and 2 are friends. They hatched a criminal conspiracy along with 3rd accused and accordingly 2nd accused went to the house of de facto complainant for persuading her to deposit some amount in Insurance. While the conversation was going on, de facto complainant went inside the house to get a tea for him. In the meantime, cheque leaves of the de facto complainant were stolen by the 2nd accused. Thereafter A1 and A2 forged cheques in the name of 3rd accused. Petitioner is the first accused in the crime. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner and de facto complainant were closely acquainted with each other. De facto complainant is a money lender. She used to take deposits from various persons and issue cheques to them on receiving amounts from them. Since the amounts were not returned, those persons started filing complaints against de facto complainant. Hence, she used to file complaints of this nature against persons who filed complaints and petitioner is also falsely implicated in the offence along with them, without any basis. In some other cases, petitioner's near relatives were also implicated. Petitioner's mother had filed complaint against de facto complainant alleging offence under section 138 of N.I. Act and thereafter she started filing cases against petitioner. [B.A.No.6171/08] 2 4. Learned counsel for petitioner also submitted that third accused was granted anticipatory bail by this Court and 2nd accused was granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court. Several similar complaints are filed by de facto complainant against several persons and most of the accused are granted anticipatory bail. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that Court had granted anticipatory bail as per order dated 20.8.2008 in B.A.No.5063/2008 to 3rd accused. He submitted that petitioner will be required for custodial interrogation, since has has knowledge of several facts and therefore a direction may be given to make himself available for interrogation and subject to that he has no objection in granting anticipatory bail. 6. On hearing both sides, I find that I have considered in detail the facts and contentions relating to circumstances under which crime is registered, in my order dated 20.8.2008 in B.A.No.5063 of 2008. Those are more or less applicable here also. In such circumstances, I am satisfied that anticipatory bail can be granted to petitioner on conditions. Hence, the following order is passed: 1) Petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer within seven days from today and make himself available for interrogation. 2) Thereafter, in the event of his arrest, if any, he shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer on the following conditions: [B.A.No.6171/08] 3 i) The petitioner shall report before the investigating officer as and when directed. ii) The petitioner shall not intimidate or influence any witness or tamper with evidence or commit any offence while on bail and in case of breach of this condition, bail is liable to be cancelled. The application is allowed as above. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Krs.