IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 4TH OCTOBER 2011 / 12TH ASWINA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 7450 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.527/2011 OF VARANTHARAPPILLY POLICE STATION THRISSUR DISTRICT APPLICANT/ACCUSED NO.4: ------------------------------ SADANANDAN, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.SUBRAMANIAN, MANKARA HOUSE, METHALA DESOM, METHALA VILLAGE, KODUNGALLOOR, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING THE S.I. OF POLICE, VARANTHARAPPILLY POLICE STATION. Addl.R2: LALITHA VIJAYAN, AGED 62 YEARS, W/O.VIJAYAN, CHULLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, KARAYAMPADAM, VARANTHARAPILLY-680303. (Additional R2 impleaded as per order dated 04/10/2011 in Crl.M.Appln.No.6698/2011) PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.MANU ADV. SRI.C.A.ANOOP FOR ADDL.R2 THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Bail Appln.No.7450 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 04th day of October, 2011 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Petitioner is accused No.4 in Crime No.527 of 2011 of Varantharappilly Police Station, Thrissur District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant. 4. The de facto complainant filed a petition dated 03/08/2011 before the Honourable Chief Minister of Kerala, which was forwarded to the police for appropriate action. Accordingly, the crime was registered. Annexure-A is the petition filed by the de facto complainant before the Honourable Chief Minister. It is stated in Annexure-A that about two years before the de facto complainant was introduced by one Subadra to one Jaya working in District Co-operative Bank. Jaya made the Bail Appln.No.7450/2011 : 2 : de facto complainant believe that a person known to her was interested in taking over a company which was then closed down and that on that representation, money was received from the de facto complainant on several occasions. A total sum of Rupees One crore was taken from the de facto complainant. It is stated that the money was received by the friends of Jaya namely, Sidhique, Sabeeb, Sakeesh and Sasi and along with them, Jaya and Subadra were also there. It is stated that the de facto complainant and her neighbours were assured that they would be given profits. It was also assured that job would be provided to them. When the de facto complainant entertained some doubt about the transaction, she was taken to the office of the District Industries Centre, where she met Sadanandan, the petitioner, who was working as Director in the District Industries Centre. It is alleged that Sadanandan stated that whatever money invested by the de facto complainant or her neighbours would not be lost. Sadanandan is now working as a director in Malabar Cements. 5. The allegations made in Annexure-A do not disclose that the petitioner (Sadanandan) received any amount from the de facto complainant or her neighbours. There is no allegation that the petitioner parted with money on the Bail Appln.No.7450/2011 : 3 : assurance given by Sadanandan. There is no allegation that the petitioner ever made any assistance to Jaya and her associates. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the ingredients of Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code are not made out in the present case. It is submitted that there is no justification to implicate the petitioner in the case and to arrest him. 6. Prima facie, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner are liable to be accepted. Going by the allegations in Annexure-A petition, I am inclined to take the view that, prima facie, no offence is made out against the petitioner. 7. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offences and other circumstances, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the petitioner, the officer in charge of the police station shall release him on bail on his executing bond for `10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions:- Bail Appln.No.7450/2011 : 4 : A) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; B) The petitioner shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence. C) The petitioner shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail. D) 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. It is made clear that the findings and observations herein above are made only for the purpose of disposing of the application for anticipatory bail of this particular accused (Sadanandan) and those findings and observations should not be taken into account at the time of trial of the case. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE skj