IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2010 / 4TH ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3794 of 2010() ----------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN CP.10/2010 CRIME NUMBER NOT KNOWN. (S): ACCUSED --------------------------- P.V. SUDHAKARAN, S/O. LATE M. VELAYUDHAN, AGED 40 YEARS, MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S. SREE LAKHSMI KURIES & LOANS (P) LTD., SREE LAKSHMI TOWER, EAST FORT MAIDAN, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PALAKKAD, TOWN SOUTH PLICE STATION. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ---------------------------------------------- Bail Application No.3794 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 25th June, 2010. O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioner, who was the Managing Director of a private company was engaged in chitty business. The complainant had joined a chitty and paid several instalments to the tune of Rs.92,000/-, but the amount was not repaid and thereby petitioner cheated defacto complainant. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the company is liquidated and as per the judgment of this Court dated 31.5.2010 in C.P.10/2010, the Liquidator has taken charge of the property and assets of the company. The assets of the company are more than sufficient to pay off the debts to all the subscribers. The company fell into a loss and hence, several persons filed company petitions. But, defacto complainant in this case deliberately filed a criminal complaint to pressurise the petitioner to give the money back. Petitioner had in fact issued a BA NO.3794/10 2 cheque, towards payment which is admitted in the complaint itself. Petitioner has no intention to cheat the defacto complainant. No offence under Section 420 IPC is involved, since dishonest intention at the time of inception of the transaction, is not made out even as per the allegations in the complaint. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the allegations in the complaint will not reveal that there was any dishonest intention at the inception. It is also submitted that this is the only criminal complaint filed against petitioner. 5. On hearing both sides and on considering the various facts pointed out by learned counsel for petitioner, I am satisfied that anticipatory bail can be granted to petitioner. Hence, the following order is passed : (1) Petitioner shall surrender before the Magistrate Court concerned within seven days from today. (2) On such surrender, petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate, on the following conditions : BA NO.3794/10 3 (i) Petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer on every alternate Monday between 10 a.m. and 1 p.m. until further orders. (ii) Petitioner shall not influence or intimidate any witness or tamper with evidence. Petition is allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. tgs