IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH JULY 2008 / 8TH SRAVANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 4756 of 2008(B) ------------------------------------- CRIME NO.373/2008 OF THE CHAVAKKAD POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED : ----------------------------- SAINUDHEEN, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.ALIKUNHI, EDAKAZHIYUR HOUSE, KADAPPURAM DESOM, VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT RESPONDENT/STATE : --------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------ B.A. No.4756 OF 2008 ------------------------------ Dated this the 30th day of July, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 420, 465, 468 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. According to the prosecution, the petitioner introduced the 2nd accused to the defacto complainant stating that the 2nd accused would be able to arrange a visa for the defacto complainant. Persuaded by the petitioner's representation, the defacto complainant handed over Rs.19,500/- to the petitioner and the 2nd accused for arranging visa. But, later, a paper was shown to the defacto complainant stating that it is a visa but it was not actually a visa. He was thereby cheated by the petitioner etc. are the allegations. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in the position of a victim. The petitioner himself took a demand draft for Rs.19,500/- for obtaining a job visa for himself believing that 2nd accused would be able to arrange one for him but he was cheated. The petitioner only introduced the defacto complainant to the 2nd accused. But, he voluntarily gave demand B.A.4756/2008 2 draft to the 2nd accused. As per the allegations in the complaint, though generally, it is stated that both accused persuaded the defacto complainant to give money, the complaint itself shows that demand draft was taken in the name of the travel agent and hence the petitioner would not be able to do anything with the demand draft, it cannot therefore be said that petitioner has cheated the defacto complainant, it is submitted. 4. According to the learned Public Prosecutor the allegations in the complaint constitute the offences alleged and hence this petition is opposed, since detailed investigation is required and for that purpose, petitioner's custodial interrogation is required. On hearing both sides, I find that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner, ensuring custodial interrogation and the following order is passed:- 1. The petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within one week from today and make himself available for interrogation. 2. Thereafter, if the petitioner is arrested, he shall be produced before the Magistrate Court in accordance B.A.4756/2008 3 with law. 3. On production of the accused before the Magistrate Court, if any bail application is filed, petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing 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: (i) The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer on every Monday and Thursday between 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. (ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or influence or intimidate any witness or commit any offence while on bail and in case of breach of this condition bail is liable to be cancelled. (iii) The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and report before the Investigating Officer as and when directed. The petition is allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE pac