IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 5353 of 2007()
1. P.D. VARGHESE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
3. THE STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.N.RATHEESH
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :03/10/2007
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
B.A.Nos. 5353 & 5953 of 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 3rd day of October, 2007
O R D E R
These applications are for anticipatory bail. The petitioners
apprehend arrest in a crime registered for offences punishable, inter
alia, under Sections 406 and 420 I.P.C. The crime has been
registered on the basis of a private complaint filed by the husband of
the first accused. He was allegedly employed abroad. He had
allegedly sent amounts to his account to facilitate withdrawal by his
wife/A1. She had allegedly withdrawn huge amounts.
2. The crux of the allegations is that the said amounts were
misused and misappropriated by the first accused. The second
accused is allegedly a person, with whom the first accused haS
intimate personal relationship. The complainant/husband doubts that
there is improper and illicit relationship between them. It is alleged
that the second accused had abetted the first accused to
misappropriate amounts. Altogether there are three petitioners. The
third petitioner is the wife of the second accused. She also
apprehends that false allegations may be raised against her and she
may be vexed and harassed by the undeserved arrest and
B.A.Nos. 5353 & 5953 of 2007
2
incarceration. All the petitioners have come before this Court for
anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
3. The learned Prosecutor, at the outset, submits that the wife of the
second accused, Philomina, is not arrayed as an accused and her arrest is
not at all required in this crime. That submission is recorded and the prayer
for anticipatory bail of the second petitioner in B.A. 5953 of 2007 can
straight away be dismissed.
4. Coming to the claim for anticipatory bail of accused 1 and 2, it is
alleged that the amounts withdrawn were made use of for the construction
of a residential building. In the absence of the defacto complainant the
building stands registered in the name of the first accused, his wife. After
returning to India, he is unnecessarily raising objections against the
registration of the building in the name of the first accused. He is allegedly
guilty of matrimonial cruelty against the first accused. The second accused
is only a neighbour of the first accused. Seeing her helpless position, the
second accused and his wife had extended help, assistance etc. to the first
accused. The second accused is a professional Preacher. Unable to
understand and accept the relationship between the first accused on the one
hand and the 2nd accused and his wife on the other, totally false
allegations are being raised. The petitioners do not deserve to suffer the
B.A.Nos. 5353 & 5953 of 2007
3
undeserved trauma of arrest and detention. They are willing to co-operate
with the investigation. Appropriate directions under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
may be issued in favour of the petitioners, it is prayed.
5. The learned Prosecutor does not oppose the application of accused
1 and 2. I am in these circumstances satisfied that the petitioners/A1 and 2
can be granted anticipatory bail. In the absence of opposition from the
learned Prosecutor, it is not necessary for me to advert to facts in any
greater detail.
6. In the result:
(A) The prayer of the second petitioner in B.A. 5953 of 2007 for
anticipatory bail is dismissed accepting the submissions of the learned
Prosecutor that she is not required to be arrested in connection with any
crime.
(B) The prayer for anticipatory bail of the first petitioner in B.A.
5953 of 2007 and the sole petitioner in 5353 of 2007 (A1 and 2
respectively) is allowed and the following directions are issued under
Section 438 Cr.P.C.
(a) The petitioners shall surrender before the learned Magistrate on
9.10.2007 at 11 a.m. The learned Magistrate shall release the petitioners on
regular bail on condition that they execute bonds for Rs.25,000/-
B.A.Nos. 5353 & 5953 of 2007
4
(Rupees twenty five thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for
the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate.
(b) The petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation
before the Investigating Officer between 10 a.m. and 1 p.m. on 10.10.2007
and thereafter as and when directed by the Investigating Officer in writing
to do so.
(c) If the petitioners do not appear before the learned Magistrate as
directed in clause (1) above, these directions shall lapse on 9.10.07 and the
police shall be at liberty thereafter to arrest the petitioners and deal with
them in accordance with law.
(d) If the petitioners were arrested prior to their surrender on
9.10.2007 as directed in clause (1) above, they shall be released on bail on
their executing bonds for Rs.25,000/- each without any surety undertaking
to appear before the learned Magistrate on 9.10.2007.
(R. BASANT)
Judge
tm