High CourtsSingle Bench(2010) 07 KL CK 0033

Sri. Rajan, Chakkalayil veedu vs State of Kerala, The Sub Inspector of Police and The Circle Inspector of Police

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 14 July 2010

HON’BLE JUDGES
K. Hema, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Appl.. No. 3772 of 2010 ()

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 410 words

K. Hema, J.—This petition is for anticipatory bail.

2.

The alleged offence is u/s 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.

5.

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.

6.

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.