IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 2651 of 2009()
1. P.A.JOSEPH,S/O.ANTONY,AGED 72 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY SUB INSPECTOR OF
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.VIVEK VARGHESE P.J.
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :09/06/2009
O R D E R
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
------------------------------------------------------
B.A. NO. 2651 OF 2009
------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 9th June, 2009
O R D E R
This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.5 in Crime
No.171 of 2009 of Mavelikkara Police Station.
2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Sections
406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The petitioner and three other accused persons moved for
anticipatory bail in B.A.No.1982 of 2009, but that application was
dismissed by this Court, as per the order dated 15.4.2009. Learned
counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is change of circumstance.
The petitioner is aged 72 years. He is suffering from coronary artery
disease/hypertension and chronic obstructive airway disease. It is stated
in the certificate issued by Dr.Joby Abraham of the Ernakulam Medical
Centre that it is likely that the petitioner has to undergo an operation on
14.6.2009 followed by bed rest. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that there is no allegation against the petitioner either by the de
facto complainant or by anybody else, that he has received any amount or
that he has issued any cheque. The petitioner stated that he deposited a
B.A. NO. 2651 OF 2009
:: 2 ::
sum of Rs.12.5 lakhs in the business concern of accused Nos.1 and 2.
When the petitioner demanded the money back, accused Nos.1 and 2
informed the petitioner that he would be made a Director in the
companies floated by them. Accordingly, the petitioner was made as a
Director in three companies. Even in the affidavit filed before Court for
getting custody of the first accused, it is submitted by the investigating
officer that the main part was played by accused Nos.1 and 2. Though
the petitioner is a Director of the companies, it is submitted that he has no
direct involvement. The counsel submitted that these facts and
circumstances coupled with the physical condition of the petitioner would
be sufficient ground in considering the request of the petitioner to grant
anticipatory bail.
4. 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 for a period of one month on his
executing bond for Rs.One lakh with two solvent sureties for the like
amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the
following conditions:
B.A. NO. 2651 OF 2009
:: 3 ::
a) The petitioner shall report before the investigating officer between
9 A.M. and 11 A.M. on all Mondays, till the final report is filed or
until further orders. If the petitioner is admitted in a hospital for
surgery or for any other purpose, that fact would be intimated to the
investigating officer and in such an event, the petitioner need not
report as above during such period.
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) On the expiry of the period mentioned above, the petitioner shall
surrender before the Magistrate concerned and seek regular bail;
f) 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
ahz/