IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 30TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 6171 of 2009 CRIME NO.326 OF 2009 OF KOZHINJAMPARA POLICE STATION PETITIONERS: ----------------------- 1. ABDUL JALEEL.K, S/O.KUNHALI, AGED 29 YEARS, KANYANA HOUSE, P.O.PERDALA, BADIADKA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. MUHAMMED HARRISS.K, S/O.KUNHALI, AGED 27 YEARS, KANYANA HOUSE, P.O.PERDALA, BADIADKA VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.SHIBILI NAHA SMT.A.LOWSY RESPONDENT: --------------- S.I OF POLICE, CHITTOOR POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD. THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/11/2009, ALONG WITH BA NO.6665 OF 2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NOS.6171 & 6665 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 30th day of November, 2009 O R D E R These are applications for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Petitioners in B.A.No.6171 of 2009 are the accused persons in Crime No.326 of 2009 of Kozhinjampara Police Station and the petitioner in B.A.No.6665 of 2009 is the first accused in Crime No.433 of 2009 of Sulthan Bathery Police Station. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioners is under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is the following: The petitioners are engaged in the business of chicken. They used to bring chicken from Tamil Nadu in lorry loads. Advance tax has to be paid for the same. The petitioners produced pay orders under the pretext of paying advance tax. Later, it was revealed that those documents were not pay orders, but cheques. On presentation of the cheques, they were dishonoured. B.A. NOS.6171 & 6665 OF 2009 :: 2 :: 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners in B.A.No.6171 of 2009 that the petitioners entrusted the amount for payment of advance tax to one George and Manoj who were regularly involved in the bank transactions. The learned counsel for the petitioner in B.A.No.6665 of 2009 submitted that the petitioner entrusted the amount for payment of advance tax to one Biju and Manoj who were regularly involved in the bank transactions. It is stated that they used to get demand drafts on behalf of the customers without any Bank's commission for the same. According to the petitioners in B.A.No.6171 of 2009, they have paid the amount to George and Manoj while, according to the petitioner in B.A.No.6665 of 2009, he has paid the amount to Biju and Manoj. Later, notices were issued to the petitioners for payment of the amount covered by the cheques as well as penalty. The learned counsel for the petitioners in B.A.No.6171 of 2009 submitted that the petitioners have paid the tax and have also paid under protest the penalty. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner in B.A.No.6665 of 2009 that the petitioner has paid the tax. 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence and the fact that the petitioners have B.A. NOS.6171 & 6665 OF 2009 :: 3 :: paid the advance tax, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners. 6. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the petitioners, the officer in charge of the police station shall release them on bail on their executing bond for Rs.25,000/- each with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions: a) The petitioners shall report before the investigating officer between 9 A.M. and 11 A.M. on alternate Mondays, till the final report is filed or until further orders; b) The petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; c) The petitioners shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence; d) The petitioners shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail; e) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to be cancelled. The Bail Applications are allowed to the extent indicated above. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/