IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Bail Appl..No. 37 of 2009() 1. P.K. NIYAS, S/O. ABEE, ... Petitioner 2. K.V. MOIDU, S/O. HASSAN, 3. P.K. FAISAL, S/O. MOIDEN, Vs 1. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ... Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA Dated :23/01/2009 O R D E R K.HEMA, J. --------------------------- B.A. No.37 OF 2009 --------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of January, 2009 O R D E R
This petition is for anticipatory bail.
2. The alleged offence is under Section 420 of I.P.C.
According to prosecution, first petitioner bid a chitty
conducted by defacto complainant and offered petitioner nos.
2 and 3 as sureties. Second petitioner produced a cheque
signed by him as a security for the amount but the said cheque
belonged to the account maintained by third accused and
thereby all of them in furtherance of common intention
committed the offence of cheating etc.
3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that
property was also offered as a security and the defacto
complainant can proceed against petitioner and petitioner may
be granted anticipatory bail.
4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor
submitted that this is a clear case of cheating and also forgery.
Second accused signed and issued a cheque, which belongs to
third accused from his account. The nature of the offence
B.A.No.37 of 2009
committed is serious and anticipatory bail may not be granted,
it is submitted.
On hearing both sides, considering the serious nature of
the allegations made, I am satisfied that it may not be proper
to grant anticipatory bail. The crime is registered as early as
on 10.12.2008 and petitioners are required for investigation.
Hence, petitioners are directed to surrender
before the Investigating Officer or the court
concerned without any delay and co-operate
with the investigation. Whether they
surrender or not, police is at liberty to
arrest them and proceed in accordance with
The petition is dismissed.