IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 6TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 17TH MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 9 of 2009 ------------------------------ CRMP.2982/2008 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT,KOTTAYAM .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 & 2: -------------------------------------------- 1. CHARLY.K.MATHEW, S/O.SAM K.MATHEW, SHARON HOUSE, DEVALOKAM PO.,KOTTAYAM. 2. SOBA CHARLY, SHARON HOUSE, DEVALOKAM PO., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------- THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTAYAM EAST POLICE STATION, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------------------- B.A.No.9 of 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 6th day of February, 2009 ORDER Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. Alleged offences are under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioners who are directors of a charitable trust made fraudulent representations and induced de facto complainant to deliver Rs.20 lakhs for the purpose of purchasing a property, but no such property was purchased as promised, but they purchased some other property in the name of another person and thereby deceived de facto complainant. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the offence of cheating is not involved, as cheque was issued and hence de facto complainant could have presented the cheque and taken the money. If at all the cheque is dishonoured, they have remedies under the Negotiable Instruments Act and offence of cheating under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code will not be attracted, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that as per the case diary there is a clear B.A.No.9 of 2009 2 case of cheating. Cheque is given only as security and not for discharge of the debt. It is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. 5. On hearing both sides and considering the allegations revealed from the case diary, it appears that petitioners have by fraudulent representations induced de facto complainant to deliver Rs.20 lakhs for a particular purpose and they have used the same for another purpose and thereby cheated de facto complainant. It is alleged in the complaint that cheques are given only as security. In such circumstances, I find that the matter requires investigation. Considering the serious nature of the allegations made, I am not satisfied that it is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioners are bound to surrender before the investigating officer and co-operate with the investigation. The crime is registered as early as on 25.10.2008. Hence the following order is passed: i) Petitioners shall surrender before the investigating officer and co-operate with the investigation. Whether they surrender or not, police is at liberty to arrest them and proceed with in accordance with law. B.A.No.9 of 2009 3 ii) No further application for anticipatory bail by petitioners in this crime will be entertained by this Court. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vns