IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 5859 of 2007()
1. SUNU KUNHACHAN, AGED 56,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SMT.SANDHYA RAJU
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :01/10/2007
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J.
----------------------
B.A.Nos.5859 & 5862 of 2007
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 1st day of October 2007
O R D E R
Application for anticipatory bail. The common petitioner, a
woman faces allegations in two separate crimes, both registered for
offences punishable inter alia under Section 420 I.P.C. The crux of
the allegations is that the de facto complainants in both cases were
induced to part with money on the promise that visas for jobs will be
handed over to the de facto complainants for employment abroad. To
assure the de facto complainants, a cheque leaf was signed by the
petitioner/first accused and handed over to the de facto complainants
on the promise that if the visas are not made available, they can
present the cheque and encash the same. Believing the words of
the petitioner who was allegedly acting in collusion with the second
accused, amounts were handed over by the de facto complainant to
the accused after receiving the cheque signed by the petitioner
herein. It was revealed later on that the cheque was not drawn on
any account of the first accused but they were drawn on the account
of the second accused which the first accused had signed before the
de facto complainants and handed them over to the respective de
facto complainant. The crime has been registered on the basis of a
complaint filed by the de facto complainant before the learned
Magistrate and referred by the learned Magistrate to the police under
B.A.No.5859 & 5862/07 2
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner
apprehends imminent arrest in the two crimes.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is absolutely innocent. She has nothing to do with the
second accused or the de facto complainant. She has a strained
relationship with the husband. The husband in collusion with the
second accused and/or the de facto complainant is raising false
allegations against the petitioner through the de facto complainants.
The petitioner had not signed in the cheques concerned. False
allegations are being raised against her by the de facto complainant.
In these circumstances, the petitioner may be granted anticipatory
bail, prays the learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. Case diaries have been perused. There are specific
allegations raised by the de facto complainants that it was the
petitioner who signed the cheque in their presence and handed them
over to the de facto complainants. There is absolutely nothing to
assume that this conduct was indulged in by the petitioner without
any fraudulent intention. The contention that her signature was
forged on a cheque leaf of the second accused by her husband and
others rebels against logic and common sense, submits the learned
Public Prosecutor.
4. I have considered all the relevant inputs. I am in
agreement with the learned Public Prosecutor. I find merit in the
B.A.No.5859 & 5862/07 3
opposition against the grant of anticipatory bail. I find no reason not
to accept the assertions made by the de facto complainants that it was
the petitioner who affixed her signatures in the cheques concerned
and handed them over to the de facto complainants to induce them to
part with money. At any rate, I am satisfied that there are no features
in this case which would justify or warrant the invocation of the
extraordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. This, I
agree with the learned Public Prosecutor, is a fit case where the
petitioner must appear before the investigating officer or the learned
Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the
normal and ordinary course. She can of course request the learned
Magistrate to invoke the compassion of the law under Section 437
Cr.P.C in favour of a woman. The learned Magistrate must consider
the application on merits and pass appropriate orders.
5. In the result, this petition is dismissed. Needless to say, if
the petitioner surrenders before the investigating officer or the
learned Magistrate and applies for bail, after giving sufficient prior
notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate
must proceed to pass appropriate orders on merits, in accordance
with law and expeditiously.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge
B.A.No.5859 & 5862/07 4
B.A.No.5859 & 5862/07 5
R.BASANT, J.
CRL.M.CNo.
ORDER
21ST DAY OF MAY2007