IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 6472 of 2007()
1. LIJO JOSEPH, S/O. JOSEPH,
... Petitioner
2. LINCE JOSEPH, S/O. JOSEPH,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :30/10/2007
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
-------------------------------------------------
B.A. No. 6472 OF 2007
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 30th day of October, 2007
ORDER
Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioners are
accused 2 and 3. Altogether, there are three accused persons.
The 1st accused is the sister of the petitioners. The 1st accused
had got married the de facto complainant in November, 2006.
She is employed in U.K. After marriage, she took the de facto
complainant also to U.K. Acrimony developed in marriage.
Both of them returned to their native place to attend the
marriage of the brother of the 1st accused. After their return
to India, accused 1 to 3 allegedly made fraudulent
representations to induce the de facto complainant to part with
his passport. He was induced to part with the passport on the
promise that it can be kept in safe custody and the possibility
of he losing it can be avoided. But after so getting the
B.A. No. 6472 OF 2007 -: 2 :-
passport, accused 1 to 3 fraudulently implemented their prior
design of the 1st accuse leaving India without giving the passport
to the de facto complainant. The original of his documents
showing his educational qualification were also kept by the
accused. The 1st accused has now left for his place of
employment. Her husband – the de facto complainant is left in
the lurch in India. He is unable to go abroad as his passport and
other documents are taken away by the 1st accused. He is
unable to seek employment in India because his certificates are
also illegally retained by the accused persons. The complainant
was thus in helpless circumstances. The accused persons
promised him that all the documents shall be returned to him on
condition that he files an application for divorce and obtain
divorce. In his anxiety to get his documents returned, he filed
an application for divorce also. Divorce has been ordered. In
spite of that, his travel documents and certificates are not being
returned. The de facto complainant now realises that he has
been taken for a ride. In is, in these circumstances, that the de
facto complainant filed a complaint before the learned
Magistrate which was referred to the police by the learned
Magistrate under Sec.156(3) of the Cr.P.C. The passport and
the travel documents have still not been returned. This case
B.A. No. 6472 OF 2007 -: 3 :-
was adjourned for a number of days giving an opportunity to the
parties to settle their disputes and to ensure that the travel
documents are returned to the de facto complainant. No
arrangement has been made so far, submits the learned Public
Prosecutor.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners are absolutely innocent. At worst, it is only a dispute
between the 1st accused and the de facto complainant. In these
circumstances, anticipatory bail may be granted to the
petitioners, it is prayed.
3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application.
The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the materials
collected so far clearly indicate the complicity of the petitioners.
Fraudulent deception of the de facto complainant is revealed
from the totality of the materials available in this case, submits
the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. I have considered all the relevant inputs. I find merit in
the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. This, I am
satisfied, is not a fit case where the powers under Sec.438 of the
Cr.P.C. can or ought to be invoked. This evidently is a fit case
where the petitioners must co-operate with the Investigator.
They must surrender before the Investigating Officer or the
B.A. No. 6472 OF 2007 -: 4 :-
learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail
in the ordinary course.
5. Needless to say, if, as submitted by the learned Public
Prosecutor, a fraudulent design to defraud the de facto
co
mplainant by the 1st
a
ccused is also available, the Investigator
m
ust take appropriate steps to get the passport of the 1st
a
ccused
impounded and to ensure that necessary steps are taken
ex
peditiously against the 1st
a
ccused also. The needful shall
cer
tainly be done by the Invest
igating Officer.
The helpless
plight of the de facto complainant does cause concern in my
mind.
6. This application for anticipatory bail is, in these
circumstances, dismissed. Communicate a copy of this order
immediately to the Investigating Officer.
(R. BASANT, JUDGE)
Nan/