IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 24TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 2ND ASWINA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 4165 of 2009() ----------------------------------------- (CRIME NO.429/2009 OF MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION) PETITIONERS(S): ACCUSED 1 & 2 IN CRIME NO.429/2009: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. DIYABJI, S/O. GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR & GOPALAKRISHNA DIYABJI, JAYA NIVAS, KURAKKANNI, VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 2. GIRIJA, W/O. GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR @GOPALAKRISHNA DIYABJI, JAYA NIVAS, KURAKKANNI, VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.P.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR, MR.C.S.DIAS, MR.N.K.SUBRAMANIAN, MR.K.V.ANIL KUMAR. RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT IN CRIME NO.429/2009: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 4165 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 24th day of September, 2009 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are the accused in Crime No.429/2009 of Medical College Police Station, Thiruvanathapuram District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 120 B and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The defacto complainant filed a complaint before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvanathapuram, which was forwarded to the Police for investigation under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, the crime was registered. 4. The allegations made in the complaint are the following: The complainant is a non resident Indian. He was working abroad. The accused persons were also working there. The accused belong to the native place of the complainant. Making the complainant believe that for the purpose of their business, B.A. No. 4165 of 2009 2 the accused persons have arranged Bank Loan and it would take some time to get the loan released and also making him believe that the amount would be repaid after getting the loan, a sum of 8,30,000 Dirhams was borrowed by the accused from the complainant. Cheques were also issued by the accused to the complainant. On the date due in respect of the first cheque, it was not presented, as the accused requested for further time. Later, after disposing of their assets, the accused left the place and came to India. The amount was not repaid to the complainant. It is alleged that the amount was taken from the petitioner/complainant making false promise and with an intent to cheat the complainant 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. I have also perused the Case Diary. 6. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that the first petitioner is entitled to the grant of Anticipatory Bail. The second petitioner is the wife of the first petitioner. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the second petitioner is entitled to get Anticipatory Bail. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of B.A. No. 4165 of 2009 3 the second petitioner, the officer in charge of the police station shall release her on bail on her executing bond for Rs.50,000/- each with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions: A) The second petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; B) The second petitioner shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence. C) The second 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 dismissed in so far as it relates to the first petitioner and the Bail Application is allowed in favour of the second petitioner as indicated above. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE ln