IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 21ST MAGHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 117 of 2010 CRIME NO.314 OF 2009 OF ARYANCODE POLICE STATION, TRIVANDRUM PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.3,2,1: -------------------------------------- 1. SANTHOSH KUMAR, S/O.KUNJUKRISHNAN, GRACE FIELD, PERUNGADAVILA, NEAR BLOCK OFFICE, ANCODE DESOM, PERUNGADAVILA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. KUNJUKRISHNAN, S/O.KUNJURAMAN, GRACE FIELD, PERUNGADAVILA, NEAR BLOCK OFFICE, ANCODE DESOM, PERUNGADAVILA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. MOHANDAS, S/O.KUNJUKRISHNAN, GRACE FIELD, PERUNGADAVILA, NEAR BLOCK OFFICE, ANCODE DESOM, PERUNGADAVILA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SMT.VIJAYAKUMARI RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 117 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 10th day of February, 2010 O R D E R When the Bail Application came up for hearing on 28.1.2010, the following order was passed: “This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are respectively accused Nos. 3, 2 and 1 in Crime No. 314/2009 of Aryancode Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 420, 406 and 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that the petitioners were illegally running a small savings scheme by collecting Rs.200/- per customers per month. It is stated that the total period of the small saving scheme is 51 months. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners stated that there are about 1000 members in the small savings scheme. B.A. NO. 117 OF 2010 :: 2 :: 5. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that several petitions were filed by the persons, who were the subscribers to the scheme stating that the petitioners have cheated them. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners intend to settle the liability to all the depositors by paying them all the amounts due to them. The petitioners intend to sell their immovable property and raise funds. For this purpose, it is submitted that some time is required. 7. In 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 petitioners to appear before the investigating officer. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the petitioners to appear before the investigating officer at 9 A.M. on 3rd and 4th February, 2010. Post on 09/02/2010. 8. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioners will not be arrested until further orders in connection with Crime No. 314 of 2009 of Aryancode Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. 9. It is made clear that this order shall not be B.A. NO. 117 OF 2010 :: 3 :: treated as a precedent in any other case, in which the petitioners figure as an accused on account of the running of the small savings scheme. In other words, this order is being passed only to see that the disputes between the petitioners and the subscribers of the small scale scheme are settled. The petitioners shall produce copy of this order before the investigating officer.” 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor that the direction in the order dated 28.1.2010 has been complied with by the petitioners. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the parties have come to an understanding to settle the disputes. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that he has no information regarding settlement of the disputes. 3. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence and also taking note of the fact that the direction in the order dated 28.1.2010 has been complied with by the petitioners, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners. There will be a direction that in the event of the B.A. NO. 117 OF 2010 :: 4 :: arrest of the petitioners, the officer in charge of the police station shall release them on bail on their executing bond for Rs.15,000/- each with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions: a) The petitioners shall report before the investigating officer between 9 A.M. and 11 A.M. on alternate Mondays, till the final report is filed or until further orders; b) The petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; c) The petitioners shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence; d) The petitioners shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail; e) 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 ahz/