High Court Kerala High Court

Jayant Purushottam Tidke vs State Of Kerala on 9 December, 2008

Kerala High Court
Jayant Purushottam Tidke vs State Of Kerala on 9 December, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 6239 of 2008()


1. JAYANT PURUSHOTTAM TIDKE,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. DEEPA, W/O. JAYANT PURUSHOTTAM TIDKE,

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.S.RAJEEV

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA

 Dated :09/12/2008

 O R D E R
                              K.HEMA, J.
                   ---------------------------------------------
                          B.A.No.6239 of 2008
                   ---------------------------------------------
                 Dated this the 9th December, 2008


                                 O R D E R

This petition is for anticipatory bail.

2. The alleged offences are under Sections 420 and 468

IPC. According to prosecution, petitioners have received Rs.6

lakhs from the defacto complainant on promise that he will be

floating a company and received Rs.2 lakh towards share capital

and Rs.4 lakh towards debenture. Thereafter, the company was

not floated and the money was not returned and thereby, the

offences were committed.

3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the

allegations made against petitioners are absolutely false.

Petitioners have a definite defence and documents are available

to establish their innocence.

4. Learned public prosecutor submitted that petitioners

may be directed to make themselves available for interrogation

and subject to that he has no objection in granting anticipatory

bail. During pendency of this petition, this Court had directed

the first accused to report before the Investigating Officer on

25.11.2008 and make himself available for interrogation to prove

his innocence if any. Thereafter, he reported and he was

BA No.6239 /2008 2

subjected to interrogation.

5. On hearing both sides and on perusal of documents

produced, I am satisfied that petitioners have a definite case to

put forward and it can be established only during trial. If

anticipatory bail is rejected, it may result in great injustice.

Hence, the following order is passed:

Petitioners shall surrender before the Magistrate

Court concerned within ten days from today and they

shall be released on bail on their executing bond for

Rs.25,000/- each with two solvent sureties each for

like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate

on the following conditions:

(i) Petitioners shall report before the Investigating

Officer within three days of release from

custody and make themselves available for

interrogation.

(ii) Petitioners shall report before the Investigating

Officer as and when directed.

The petition is allowed.

K.HEMA, JUDGE
csl