IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 27TH DECEMBER 2011 / 6TH POUSHA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 10380 of 2011 ------------------------------------- PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 3 : - -------------------------------------------------- 1. MUHAMMED SALI, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED KUTTY, KOCHUVEETTIL HOUSE, ERATTUPETTA. 2. BHASI M.K., AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.KUNJU KOCHU, MEENTHALAKAL HOUSE, KOORAPPADA P.O., PAMPADY. 3. SASIDHARAN NAIR, S/O.THANKAPPAN NAIR, OTTAPOIKAYIL, ETTUMANOOR VILLAGE, ETTUMANOOR P.O. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW ABRAHAM RESPONDENTS / STATE AND COMPLAINANT: - --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PAMPADY POLICE STATION, PIN - 686 502. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. ABDUL SALAM THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: DMR/- N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------ B.A. No: 10380 OF 2011 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 27th day of December, 2011 O R D E R Petitioners are accused nos. 1 to 3 in Crime No:584/2011 of Pampady Police Station, Kottayam District. The allegation is that the petitioners are conducting money lending business and signed blank cheques and blank stamp papers were obtained from the defacto complainant. By making use of those documents, the accused persons are trying to extort money from the complainant. Crime No. 584/2011 was registered under sections 420 and 384 r/w 34 IPC and also under sections 13 and 17 of Money Lenders Act. 2. Suit was filed by three accused persons against the defacto complainant claiming a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-, as O.S. No:529/2011. That suit was filed on 25.10.2011. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was after service of summons in the suit this complaint B.A. No: 10380 OF 2011 -2- was filed by the defendant therein. It is submitted by the learned counsel that when the police conducted search in the house of A1 on 24.11.2011, three blank cheque leaves and signed blank stamp papers purported to have been given by the defacto complainant were seized from A1. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the petitioners have no license to conduct money lending business and as such sections 13 and 17 would squarely apply. Hence the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition. The learned counsel submits that the fact that the complaint was filed only after the filing of the suit would show the fallacy of the allegation made by the complainant. 5. I am not entering a finding on those allegations and counter allegations. The fact that signed blank cheque leaves and stamp papers were seized from the house of the 1st accused, may to some extent redress the grievance of the complainant. B.A. No: 10380 OF 2011 -3- 6. Considering all these aspects it is ordered as under: The petitioner will surrender before the Investigating Officer within ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. After interrogation the petitioners shall be produced before the Magistrate. The learned Magistrate will consider the Bail application in the facts and circumstances stated above and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible. N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE jjj