IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 3772 of 2010()
1. SRI.RAJAN, CHAKKALAYIL VEEDU,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.S.HARIKRISHNAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :14/07/2010
O R D E R
K.HEMA, J
-----------------------
B.A No.3772 OF 2010
--------------------------------
Dated this the 14th day of July 2010
ORDER
This petition is for anticipatory bail.
2. The alleged offence is under Section 420 r/w 34 of IPC.
According to prosecution, de facto complainant was deceived by
petitioners and she was made to pay Rs.14,00,000/- to them stating
that he intends to start a business and that they assured that she will
be given profit in business which was to be started with the money
advanced. No business was started and money was not repaid.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that there was some
transaction between de facto complainant and petitioner. But, be could
not repay the money or redeem the gold ornaments which were
pledged. But, an agreement was executed between the parties as
Annexure A2 promising to repay the money in the year 2011 to de
facto complainant. But, in spite of the agreement, a criminal complaint
was filed. De facto complainant had also advanced an amount of
Rs.12,00,000/- to another person and it was through the intervention of
petitioner, that the amount was also paid back to de facto complainant.
4. Petitioner was prepared to explain his innocence to
Investigating Officer and a direction was issued by this court and
accordingly, he reported before the Investigating Officer and he was
questioned by him. At that time, de facto complainant also appeared
B.A No.3772 OF 2010 2
before the Investigating Officer and stated that the matter is settled
and the money was paid and gold was returned.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that de facto
complainant and petitioner had appeared before the Investigating
Officer and it is reported that the matter was settled between the
parties and that de facto complainant has no grievance against
petitioner. Hence, he has no objection in granting anticipatory bail to
petitioner.
5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that anticipatory bail
can be granted on conditions. Hence, the following order is passed.
(1) Petitioner shall, in the event of arrest, be released on
bail on his executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees
twenty five thousand only) with two solvent sureties
each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting
officer on the following conditions:
(i) Petitioner shall report before the Investigating
Officer as and when directed and co-
operate with investigation.
(2) This order will be in force only for a period of 15 days
from today. In the mean time, petitioner shall seek
regular bail from the court concerned.
Petition is allowed.
vdv K.HEMA, JUDGE