IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 5779 of 2009()
1. KIRAN JOSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :02/02/2010
O R D E R
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
---------------------------------------------
B.A.No.5779 of 2009
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2010
ORDER
This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section
438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the sole
accused in Crime No.493 of 2009 of Anchal Police Station.
2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under
Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The de facto complainant filed a petition to the
Superintendent of Police, Kollam which was forwarded to the
C.I. of Police, Punalur. A crime was registered as Crime No.890
of 2009 by Punalur police Station. Subsequently, the case was
transferred to Anchal Police Station where it was re-registered
as Crime No.493 of 2009. The case of the de facto complainant
is that he sold rubber to the petitioner and the petitioner had to
pay a sum of Rs.26,13,705/- to the de facto complainant. A
cheque was issued in discharge of that liability. When the
cheque was presented, it was returned on the ground that the
account was closed. The de facto complainant stated that the
petitioner had committed the offence under Section 420 of the
BA No.5779/2009 2
Indian Penal Code.
4. The case of the petitioner is that the rubber
purchased by him from the de facto complainant was supplied to
Appollo Tyres. Appollo Tyres rejected the goods on the ground
of the same being of substandard quality. The rubber was
entrusted back to the de facto complainant. The petitioner
demanded the money which he had paid to the de facto
complainant. There arose a dispute between them. It is alleged
that the person hired by the de facto complainant came to the
office of the petitioner and ransacked his office. Though a
petition was filed before the police, no crime was registered.
5. 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;
BA No.5779/2009 3
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
BA No.5779/2009 4
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
———————————————
B.A.No.5779 of 2009
———————————————
Dated this the 6th day of October, 2009
ORDER
This Bail Application was posted to 12.10.2009. On a
mention made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Bail
Application has been posted today.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Public Prosecutor.
3. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that
he requires time to get instructions in the matter and that till the
next posting date, the petitioner would not be arrested. This
BA No.5779/2009 5
submission is recorded.
Post on 15.10.2009.
K.T.SANKARAN,
JUDGE
csl
Hand over copy to both sides.