IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 4882 of 2007()
1. VELANDY, S/O.THAVETTY RAMAN, METHALA
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE PUBLIC
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.M.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :13/08/2007
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
-------------------------------------------------
B.A. No. 4882 OF 2007
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 13th day of August, 2007
ORDER
Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner faces
allegations, inter alia, under Sec.420 of the IPC. A crime has
been registered on the basis of a private complaint filed by the
de facto complainant and referred to the police by the learned
Magistrate under Sec.156(3) of the Cr.P.C. The crux of the
allegations against the petitioner is that he fraudulently
suppressed a charge relating to his property consequent to an
attachment by the Family Court and induced the complainant
to part with money. Investigation is in progress. The
petitioner apprehends imminent arrest.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is absolutely innocent. There was no wilful or
fraudulent suppression of any vital fact. It had been revealed
to the complainant that there was such an attachment.
B.A. No. 4882 OF 2007 -: 2 :-
Knowing fully well of the attachment, the complainant had taken
the assignment of the property. In these circumstances, the
petitioner may not be subjected to the undeserved trauma of
arrest and detention. Anticipatory bail may be granted to the
petitioner, submits the learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application.
There is absolutely nothing to indicate that there was no
fraudulent suppression of the fact of attachment which the
petitioner knew, submits the learned Public Prosecutor. The de
facto complainant has been obliged to pay a huge amount of
Rs.1,50,000/- to save his property from sale. In these
circumstances, this is certainly not a fit case where anticipatory
bail can be granted to the petitioner, submits learned Public
Prosecutor.
4. I find merit in the opposition by the learned Public
Prosecutor. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I am
unable to perceive any features which would justify the issue of a
direction under Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C. This, I am satisfied, is a
fit case where the petitioner must resort to the ordinary and
normal course of appearing before the Investigating Officer or
the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction. He must then seek
regular bail in the ordinary course.
B.A. No. 4882 OF 2007 -: 3 :-
5. In the result, this bail application is dismissed; but with
the observation that if the petitioner surrenders before the
Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate and seeks 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 and expeditiously.
Sd/-
(R. BASANT, JUDGE)
Nan/
//true copy//
P.S. to Judge