IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2008 / 9TH ASHADHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 4079 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRMP.1117/2008 of J.M.F.C., KATTAPPANA CRIME NO. 540/2008 OF KATTAPPANA POLICE STATION PETITIOENR : ----------------- REGI @ ABRHAM, KURUMANNIL HOUSE NATHUKALLU, KATTAPPANA BY ADV. SRI.K.M.KURIAN SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR RESPONDENT: ------------- STATE OF KERALA REP. BY S.I. OF POLICE KATTAPPANA POLICE STATION, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 4079 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 30th day of June, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. 2. A complaint is filed on 27-5-2008 against the petitioner and others alleging offences under sections 120B, 419 and 420 IPC before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kattappana. A copy is produced as Annexure-E. The said complaint was sent under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. for investigation and a crime was registered. A copy of the F.I.R. is produced as Annexure-F. The petitioner is apprehending arrest in connection with the said crime and hence this application for anticipatory bail. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is an attempt to prosecute the petitioner for the same offence twice. It is pointed out that earlier on 26-4-2008, on the same set of allegations another complaint (Annexure-C) was filed before the same court against the petitioner and others. The learned Magistrate was proceeding with an enquiry under section 202 Cr.P.C.; and the complaint was not sent under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Apprehending that the complaint would end in a BA 4079/08 -2- dismissal, the complainant filed the present complaint making same allegations. This was done after the transfer of the learned Magistrate before whom Annexure-C complaint was filed and on the present Magistrate taking charge of the same court. This is done only to harass the petitioner. This is not legally permissible, it is submitted. 4. On hearing both sides and on going through Annexures-C and E it is clear that both complaints contain same set of allegations. In the above circumstances, I am satisfied that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner and the following order is passed:- Petitioner shall be released on bail, in the event of his arrest, on his executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- with solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer on condition that he shall co-operate with the investigation and appear before him as and when directed. The application is allowed as above. K. HEMA, JUDGE. mn.