IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2008 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 1574 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.739/07 OF MATHILAKAM POLICE STATION PETITIONER : APPLICANT -------------------------- SAKKEER HUSSAIN, S/O,.NOORUDHEEN MAMMASARA VILLATH CHAMAKKALAYIL HOUSE VALAPPAD VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, NEAR DHARMAVILASAM SCHOOL, P.O. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ B.A.No.1574 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of March, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioner faces allegations in a crime registered under Section 365 I.P.C. The crux of the allegations is that the petitioner abducted the defacto complainant in his car. There was discussion regarding certain business transactions. The defacto complainant was allegedly assaulted. His mobile phone and currency were forcibly taken away. He was compelled to sign in blank papers. He was dropped back after this sequence of events. He lodged a complaint before the police on the next day. Accordingly the crime has been registered. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations are totally false and improbable. Even accepting the entire allegations it appears to be very clear that there was a business dispute between the parties and there were some discussions. Admittedly the defacto complainant had got into the car voluntarily. Even assuming that something untoward took place inside the car, it would be idle to assume that it was a case of forcible abduction/kidnapping. The defacto complainant obviously is attempting to wriggle out of the obligations which he B.A.No.1574 of 2008 2 has to face on the basis of documents executed by him. In any view of the matter, the petitioner does not deserve to endure the trauma of arrest and detention. He may be granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 3. Notice was given to the learned Public Prosecutor. I have perused the case diary. After discussions at the Bar, the learned Public Prosecutor does not oppose the application for anticipatory bail. I am also persuaded to agree that this is a fit case where directions under Section 438 Cr.P.C can and ought to be issued in favour of the petitioner. Subject of course to appropriate conditions, which shall ensure and safeguard the interests of a fair, efficient and expeditious investigation, anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. The other accused have already been arrested and enlarged on bail, it is submitted. 4. In the result, this Bail Application is, allowed. The following directions are issued under Section 438 Cr.P.C. i) The petitioner shall appear before the learned Magistrate at 11 a.m on 31.03.08. He shall be enlarged on regular bail on his executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate; B.A.No.1574 of 2008 3 ii) The petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer between 10 a.m and 5 p.m on 01.04.2008 and 02.04.2008. During this period, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to interrogate the petitioner in custody and take all necessary steps the proper conduct of the investigation. Thereafter the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer between 10 a.m and 12 noon on all Mondays and Fridays for a period of two months and subsequently as and when directed by the Investigating Officer in writing to do so; iii) If the petitioner does not appear before the learned Magistrate as directed in clause (i), directions issued above shall thereafter stand revoked and the police shall be at liberty to arrest the petitioner and deal with him in accordance with law as if those directions were not issued at all; iv) If the petitioner were arrested prior to his surrender on 31.03.08 as directed in clause (1) above, he shall be released from custody on his executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) without any sureties undertaking to appear before the learned Magistrate on 31.03.08. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-