IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 27TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 6TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7157 of 2008() ------------------------------------------- (CRIME NO.393 OF 2008 OF FORT POLICE STATION) PETITIONER:3RD ACCUSED: --------------------------------------------- SASIDHARAN, S/O.JANARDHANAN, AGED 47, PARAYIL HOUSE, VATTAVILA,AZHIKKONAM, UDIYANKULANGARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.MOHANAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------- SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, FORT POLICE STATON, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLCATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K.HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.7157 of 2008 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th November, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 420, 416 and 120(B) read with Section 34 IPC. According to prosecution, second accused introduced first accused to defacto complainant stating that first accused is having a peculiar type of a petromax in which a particular metal is used. For the use of such metal, sanction from Central Government is required and if Rs.5 lakh is advanced, sanction can be obtained and profit from sale of petromax can be shared with defacto complainant. Believing these representations, defacto complainant executed an agreement with first and second accused and third accused signed it as a witness. Though first accused's name is 'Murukesan', he personated himself as 'Suresh Kumar' in executing document. This fact was known to the third accused, who signed as a witness to the agreement. Thereafter, Rs.5 lakh was advanced by the defacto complainant to the first accused BA No.7157/2008 2 and he purchased a property in the name of first accused and fourth accused. The fourth accused is the wife of first accused. Thereafter, no profit was given to defacto complainant and no sanction was obtained from Central Government for the use of metal. The money was also not returned. Thereby, all the accused in furtherance of common intention committed various offences as alleged. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner who is the third accused in the crime is absolutely innocent of the allegations made. He is only a mere signatory in the agreement and he has no role in the offence. He also submitted that he has not obtained any monetary gain out of the entire transactions. It is also submitted that property purchased in the name of first and fourth accused was already attached and the fourth accused in this case was granted anticipatory bail by this Court. Therefore, petitioner may also be granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 4. Learned public prosecutor opposed this bail application and submitted that this is a clear case of cheating with the knowledge of third accused, who was a signatory to the BA No.7157/2008 3 agreement. The first accused's actual name is Murukesan, but, his name was shown as Suresh Kumar in the agreement with a view to cheat the defacto complainant. This fact was known to the third accused, who stood as a witness to the agreement and signed the same knowing that incorrect name was shown in the agreement. It is submitted by learned public prosecutor that fourth accused was granted anticipatory bail for specific reasons stated in the order. The case of fourth accused stands on a different footing than all the other accused and reasons were shown in the order itself why anticipatory bail was granted to the fourth accused. That cannot be made a ground to grant anticipatory bail to petitioner, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that in the nature of allegations made, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to petitioner. The fact that fourth accused was granted anticipatory bail also cannot be made a ground to grant anticipatory bail to petitioner, especially since her role is totally different from the petitioner. The reasons for granting of anticipatory bail to the fourth accused are stated in detail in the order dated 24.9.2008 in B.A.No.5887/2008 which are self BA No.7157/2008 4 explanatory. Unlike in the case of petition under Section 437 Crl.P.C., granting of anticipatory bail to a person cannot be a ground of same relief to another. The crime was registered as early as on 11.7.2008 and petitioner was not available for investigation in spite of the expiry of four months. Petitioner is required for interrogation and hence, the following order is passed: Petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer forthwith and co-operate with investigation. Whether he surrenders or not, police is at liberty to arrest him and proceed in accordance with law. With this direction, petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE csl