IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH AUGUST 2011 / 2ND BHADRA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 6381 of 2011 CRIME NO.987 OF 2011 OF SOUTH PARAVUR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM. PETITIONERS: ACCUSED NOS.1 AND 2: -------------------- 1. SANAL KUMAR, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.CHELLAPPAN,KALLUMPURATHU VEEDU, KONGAL CHERRI, KOTTAPPURAM VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT 2. MONILAL, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.SASIDHARAN, NADAKUVILA VEEDU, POOTHAKULAM CHIERRI, POOTHAKKULAM VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.BINU GEORGE SMT.HEMALATHA RESPONDENT: STATE: --------------- STATE OF KERALA REP.BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PARAVUR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM~ PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ Bail Appl. NO. 6381 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 24th day of August, 2011 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.987 of 2011 of South Paravur Police Station, Kollam District. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioners is under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that the accused persons promised jobs in Muscat to the de facto complainant's son and the son of the relative of the de facto complainant and promised to arrange visa for that purpose. The accused collected money from them. It is alleged that though they were taken to Muscat, they were not provided the job assured. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the alleged victims are still working in Muscat. Bail Appl. NO.6381 of 2011 :: 2 :: 4. When the Bail Application came up for admission on 11.8.2011, the following order was passed: “4. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the offence, I am of the view that before considering the question of granting anticipatory bail, the petitioners should be directed to appear before the investigating officer. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the petitioners to appear before the investigating officer on 18.8.2011 and 19.8.2011. 5. Post on 24.8.2011. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioners will not be arrested in connection with Crime No.987 of 2011 of South Paravur Police Station, Kollam, till 26.8.2011. The petitioners shall co-operate with the investigating officer in the matter of investigation and for recovery of incriminating materials, if any. The petitioners shall produce a copy of this order before the investigating officer.“ 5. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that only the first petitioner/accused No.1 appeared before the investigating Bail Appl. NO.6381 of 2011 :: 3 :: officer in compliance with the order dated 11.8.2011 and that the second petitioner/accused No.2 did not appear. Since accused No.2 did not comply with the direction in the order dated 11.8.2011, he is not entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Bail Application is liable to be dismissed in so far as the second petitioner/accused No.2 is concerned. 6. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence and also taking note of the fact that the direction in the order dated 11.8.2011 has been complied with by the first petitioner/accused No.1, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to the first petitioner/accused No.1. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the first petitioner/accused No.1, the officer in charge of the police station shall release him on bail on his executing bond for `10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions: Bail Appl. NO.6381 of 2011 :: 4 :: a) The first petitioner/accused No.1 shall report before the investigating officer between 9 A.M. and 11 A.M. on all Mondays, for a period of two months; b) The first petitioner/accused No.1 shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; c) The first petitioner/accused No.1 shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence; d) The first petitioner/accused No.1 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 Application is dismissed in so far as it relates to the second petitioner/accused No.2 and it is allowed in the manner indicated above in so far as it relates to the first petitioner/accused No.1. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/