IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2008 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7302 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.791/2008 OF CHATHANNOOR POLICE STATION PETITIONER (S): 1ST ACCUSED: -------------------------------- ABDUL RAHMAN, S/O.NOOHUKANNU, R.S.MANZIL, KAATTUMURAKKAL, MUDAPURAM P.O., KIZHUVILOM VILLAGE, CHIRAYINKIL. BY ADV. SRI.M.DINESH RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: --------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A. No. 7302 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 1st day of December,2008 O R D E R Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 420 read with section 34 IPC. According to prosecution, accused 2 and 3 approached de facto complainant and introduced themselves as sub agent of 1st accused who is running a travel agency and promised to arrange a visa and job for her husband. Believing the false representation and as persuaded by it, de facto complainant advanced an amount of Rs.1 lakh to 2nd accused in the presence of accused 3 and 4. Thereafter, visa was arranged and though her husband went abroad, he did not get the job as promised. Thereby, de facto complainant was cheated by accused 1 to 4 in furtherance of common intention. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is absolutely innocent of the allegations made. Petitioner is running a travel agency and accused 2 and 3 are also running another travel agency. They have absolutely no relationship with each other. Even as per the allegations in the complaint, petitioner's only involvement is as stated by accused 2 and 3. The 1st accused is conducting a travel agency independently and he has no relationship with accused 2 and 3 BA 7302/08 -2- or 4th accused. Therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted, it is submitted. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that as per the allegation, it was the representation made by accused 2 and 3 to the de facto complainant that they are the sub agent of the travel agency run by 1st accused. That is the reason petitioner is brought into the array of accused. 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that it is only fit and proper to grant anticipatory bail to petitioner and hence the following order is passed:- (1) Petitioner shall surrender before the Magistrate Court concerned within seven days from today and he shall be released on bail, on his executing a bond for Rs. 25,000/- with two solvent sureties each, for the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate, on the following conditions:- i) Petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer as and when directed. ii) Petitioner shall not intimidate or BA 7302/08 -3- influence any witness or tamper with evidence or commit any offence while on bail. This petition is allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. mn.