Kerala High Court
Rajeswari S.Pillai vs State Of Kerala Represented on 9 October, 2009
Author: K.T. Sankaran
Bench: K.T.Sankaran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 5307 of 2009()
1. RAJESWARI S.PILLAI,W/O.SHANMUGHAM PILLAI
... Petitioner
2. V.A.JOHN,S/O.JOPESH,AGED 39 YEARS,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.K.RAVISANKAR
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :09/10/2009
O R D E R
K.T. SANKARAN, J.
---------------------------
B.A. No.5307 of 2009
------------------------------------
Dated this the 9th day of October, 2009
O R D E R
This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.275/2009 of Pampady Police Station, Kottayam.
2. The offence alleged against the petitioners is under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. When the Bail Application came up for hearing on 23/9/2009, the following order was passed:
"This is an application for bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Petitioners are the accused persons in Crime No.275/2009 of Pampady Police Station.
2. The offence alleged against the petitioners is under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The prosecution case is that the accused B.A. No.5307/2009 2 persons took money from the de facto complainant and her relatives for arranging visa for them to go abroad. The visas were not arranged. Money was also not paid back. A petition was filed against the petitioners before the police on 23/8/2009, which was registered as Crime No.275 of 2009.
4. The petitioners state that the de facto complainant had borrowed money from the first petitioner and it was not repaid. On behalf of the first petitioner, a lawyer notice dated 28/7/2009 was issued to the de facto complainant demanding her to pay back the amount. She did not comply with the demand nor did she send any reply notice.
5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I think it would be ideal if the petitioners are given an opportunity to appear before the investigating officer and explain the matters. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the petitioners to appear before the investigating officer at 9A.M. on 5th and 6th October, 2009.
Post on 9/10/2009.
B.A. No.5307/2009 3 It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioners will not be arrested until further orders in connection with Crime No.275 of 2009 of Pampady Police Station."
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioners had complied with the directions and their statements were recorded by the investigating officer.
5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence and other circumstances, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the petitioners, the officer in charge of the police station shall release them on bail on their executing bond for Rs.15,000/- each with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions:
A) The petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required;
B) The petitioners shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence.
B.A. No.5307/2009 4 C) The petitioners shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail. D) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to be cancelled.
The Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated above.
K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm