Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 29173
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P. G. Ajithkumar, J
PINKY P.R. – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Bail Application | B.A.No. 10292 of 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: LATHEESH SEBASTIAN
For the Respondents: P.G. MANU
The court concluded that anticipatory bail is warranted given the civil nature of the disputes involved, allowing pre-arrest bail under specific conditions.
Headnote:The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in relation to Crime No.1500 of 2022 concerning an alleged fraud under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The court found the case predominantly civil in nature; thus, bail was granted subject to specific conditions. The core issue was whether the petitioner could receive bail due to the nature of the allegations against her and the status of the investigation. The court allowed the bail application under stipulated conditions to ensure compliance with the investigation process.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. nature of allegations concerning fraud. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. consideration of investigation's logical progress. (Para 4) |
| 3. granting of anticipatory bail. (Para 5) |
ORDER
This is an application for anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973.
2. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.1500 of 2022 of Chadayamangalam Police Station for having allegedly committed the offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code , 1860.
3. The prosecution allegation is that the defacto complainant is brother of the petitioner’s father and during February 2022 the petitioner received Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) from the defacto complainant by withdrawing such an amount using A.T.M. card of the defacto complainant. For the repayment of that amount the petitioner has issued a cheque, but, when presented for encashment, it was dishonoured.
4. The petitioner would contend that she did not involve in the alleged crime and without any material or evidence, she was implicated in the crime. The learned Public Prosecutor would submit that unless presence of the petitioner is ensured the investigation cannot be taken to its logical end.
5. Considering the nature of the offence alleged against the petitioner, which predominantly is a dispute of civil nature, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to get pre-arrest bail.
In the result, the bail application is allowed and the petitioner is directed to surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks. After interrogation and in the event of her being arrested, she shall be released on bail on the execution of a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only), with two solvent sureties for the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the investigating officer, and on the following conditions:
(i) She shall not influence or intimidate witnesses or tamper with evidence;
(ii) She shall appear before the investigating officer as and when called for; and
(iii) During the bail period, She shall not get involved in any offence.
In case of breach of the bail conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of the bail before the jurisdictional court.
