IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 867 of 2008()
1. SUMESH , S/O.NANAPPAN
... Petitioner
2. RAJANI, W/O.SUMESH, RESIDING
Vs
1. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
... Respondent
2. STATE REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
For Petitioner :SRI.CIBI THOMAS
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :14/02/2008
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J.
----------------------
B.A.No.867 of 2008
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 14th day of February 2008
O R D E R
Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioners/spouses face
allegations in a crime registered under Section 420 I.P.C. The
crux of the allegations raised is that the petitioners had induced
the de facto complainant to part with amounts on the promise
that a visa shall be arranged for employment abroad. Visa was
made available. It was not a proper visa. Job seeker had to
return to the country. There was an agreement to pay the
amount. The amount was not paid. Visa was not made available.
It is alleged that the petitioners had cheated the de facto
complainant.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the allegations are totally false. The second petitioner has been
dragged into the controversy without any reasonable cause.
Even the agreement, which is referred to in the F.I.R, knocks the
bottom of the theory that there was any element of cheating in
the conduct on the part of the petitioners. The agreement dated
27/12/2007 does not, in any way, refer to any complicity on the
part of the petitioners or even the involvement of the second
petitioner. The attempt is only to somehow extract money from
B.A.No.867/08 2
the petitioners. The mere fact that there was an agreement to
pay the money does not and cannot entail any culpable liability
for the first petitioner also, submits the learned counsel for the
petitioner.
3. The learned Public Prosecutor does not oppose the
application. I am satisfied, in the facts and circumstances of this
case that the petitioners can be granted anticipatory bail. In the
absence of opposition, it is not necessary for me to advert to
facts in any greater detail.
4. In the result, this petition is allowed. Following
directions are issued under Section 438 Cr.P.C in favour of the
petitioners.
i) Petitioners shall surrender before the learned
Magistrate having jurisdiction at 11 a.m on 21/02/2008. They
shall be released on regular bail on condition that they execute
bonds for Rs.25,000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand only) each
with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction
of the learned Magistrate.
ii) The petitioners shall make themselves available for
interrogation before the investigating officer between 10 a.m
and 3 p.m on 22/02/2008 and 23/02/2008. During this period,
B.A.No.867/08 3
the investigating officer shall be at liberty to interrogate the
petitioners in custody and take all necessary steps for the proper
conduct of the investigation in this crime. Thereafter the
petitioners shall so appear on all Mondays and Fridays between
10 a.m and 12 noon for a period of two months. Subsequently
the petitioners shall so appear as and when directed by the
investigating officer in writing to do so.
(iii) If the petitioners do not appear before the learned
Magistrate as directed in clause (i), directions issued above shall
thereafter stand revoked and the police shall be at liberty to
arrest the petitioners and deal with them in accordance with law,
as if these directions were not issued at all.
(iv) If they were arrested prior to 21/02/2008, they shall
be released from custody on their executing a bond for
Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) without any
sureties, undertaking to appear before the learned Magistrate on
21/02/2008.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
jsr
B.A.No.867/08 4
B.A.No.867/08 5
R.BASANT, J.
CRL.M.CNo.
ORDER
21ST DAY OF MAY2007