M.N.Chandran vs State Of Kerala on 9 February, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 130 of 2010()


1. M.N.CHANDRAN, AGED 53 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.K.AJITH KUMAR

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN

 Dated :09/02/2010

 O R D E R
                      K.T. SANKARAN, J.
                   ---------------------------
                     B.A. No. 130 of 2010
                  -----------------------------
            Dated this the 9th day of February, 2010

                          O R D E R

This is an application for anticipatory bail under

Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner

is the accused in Crime No.32/2010 of Puthencruz Police

Station.

2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under

Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The prosecution case is that the petitioner received

Rs.4,00,000/- as deposit from the de facto complainant by

offering job in a Co-operative Society, of which the petitioner

is the Honorary Secretary. It is alleged that the de facto

complainant was not provided with the job and the amount

was not returned.

4. When the Bail Application came up for hearing on

19/01/2010, the following order was passed:

“After having heard the learned counsel for

the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, I

am of the view that before disposing of the Bail

Application, an opportunity should be given to the

B.A. No. 130 /2010
2

petitioner to appear before the investigating officer.

Accordingly, there will be a direction to the petitioner

to appear before the investigating officer at 9 A.M. on

24th January, 2010. The petitioner shall produce a

copy of the order before the investigating officer.

Post on 29th January, 2010.

It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor

that the petitioner will not be arrested until further

orders.”

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the

petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor that the

petitioner has complied with the direction contained in the order

dated 19/01/2010.

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.15,000/- with two

solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the

B.A. No. 130 /2010
3

officer concerned, subject to the following conditions:

A) The petitioner shall report before the
investigating officer between 9 A.M and 11 A.M.
on alternate Sundays, till the final report is filed
or until further orders;

B) The petitioner shall appear before the
investigating officer for interrogation as and
when required;

C) The petitioner shall not try to influence the
prosecution witnesses or tamper with the
evidence.

D) The petitioner 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 allowed to the extent indicated

above.

K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE

scm