IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2010 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 656 of 2010 CRIME NO.538 OF 2009 OF KADUTHURUTHY POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM PETITIONER/3RD ACCUSED ------------------------------------------ MOLLY JOSEPH, W/O.LATE JOSEPH, KADANTHOTTU HOUSE, MANIMALA P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO SMT.C.M.CHARISMA SRI.N.A.SHAFEEK RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT -------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTING S.I. OF POLICE KADUTHURUTHY, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 656 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2010 O R D E R This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the third accused in Crime No.538 of 2009 of Kaduthuruthy Police Station, Kottayam. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that the de facto complainant was made to believe by accused Nos.1 and 2 that a job could be arranged in Australia for him and a sum of Rs.1.5 lakhs was collected from him. The third accused, the petitioner herein, is the main person involved in the racket, in which, accused Nos.1 and 2 are also members. It is alleged that a total sum of Rs.47 lakhs was collected by them from 40 persons offering a job in Australia. None of them could go to Australia. Their money was not repaid also. The petitioner was arrested from Delhi. She was not at all available in B.A. NO. 656 OF 2010 :: 2 :: her native place. According to the prosecution, the petitioner was absconding to avoid arrest. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 21.12.2009 and she is in judicial custody since 24.12.2009. The petitioner is prepared to comply with any condition that may be imposed by the Court. It is also submitted that the petitioner being a woman, she is entitled to get special protection as provided in the proviso to Section 437(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that no final report is filed within 60 days from the date of arrest of the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to default bail. It was also pointed out that the application filed by the petitioner for bail as B.A.No.318 of 2010 was dismissed by this Court by the order dated 25.1.2010 and even thereafter, no final report was filed. 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the duration of the judicial custody undergone by the petitioner, the nature of the offence and the present stage of investigation, I am of the view that bail can be granted to the petitioner. B.A. NO. 656 OF 2010 :: 3 :: 6. The petitioner shall be released on bail on her executing bond for Rs.50,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Vaikom, subject to the following conditions: a) The petitioner shall report before the investigating officer between 9 A.M. and 11 A.M. on all Mondays, till the final report is filed or until further orders; b) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; c) The petitioner shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence; d) The petitioner 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 as above. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/