IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 4336 of 2009()
1. JAYARAJAN.K.P., S/O.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.K.M.FIROZ
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :06/08/2009
O R D E R
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
---------------------------------------------
B.A.No.4336 of 2009
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of August, 2009
ORDER
This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section
438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the
first accused in Crime No.1348 of 2009 of Kothamangalam Police
Station.
2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under
Sections 420 and 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code.
3. The defacto complainant submitted a petition before
the Inspector General of Police, Ernakulam Range, which was
forwarded to the Kothamangalam Police Station and accordingly,
the crime was registered. The case put forward by the defacto
complainant is the following: The first accused promised to
supply the Chinese made beds at the rate of Rs.2,800/- and took
advance from the defacto complainant. Rs.28,000/- was
deposited in the account of the first accused. The first accused
did not supply the goods. On demanding the supply of goods or
BA No.4336/2009 2
return of money, the first accused stated that if the defacto
complainant paid a further sum of Rs.10,000/-, a visa could be
arranged for him to go abroad. Believing the words of the first
accused and his wife (second accused), the defacto complainant
paid a further sum of Rs.10,000/-. The amount was not repaid
nor the visa arranged.
4. The case of the petitioner is different. According to
him, he is the distributor of induction cookers. The defacto
complainant was an agent of the petitioner/first accused in the
matter of sale of induction cookers. The first accused/petitioner
relies on Annexure B photograph taken allegedly on the occasion
of the inauguration of the shop of the defacto complainant. It is
stated that the petitioner is also seen in the photograph.
Induction cookers are also displayed in the shop, as seen from
the photograph. The case of the petitioner is that money is due
from the defacto complainant on account of the supply of
induction cookers.
5. Now there are two irreconcilable and contradictory
cases put forward by the two parties. The claim is in respect of
money. Both parties claim money from the other. To suit their
BA No.4336/2009 3
cases, they have put forward their own stories.
6. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the
case, the nature of the offence and other circumstances, I am of
the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner.
There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of
the petitioner, the officer in charge of the police station shall
release him on bail on his executing bond for Rs.25,000/- with
two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the
officer concerned, subject to the following conditions:
a) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer
for interrogation as and when required;
b) The petitioner shall not try to influence the prosecution
witnesses or tamper with the evidence;
c) The 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 allowed to the extent indicated
above.
K.T.SANKARAN,
JUDGE
csl