ORDER

Dated this the 2nd day of March, 2021 APPLICATION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL The applicants are husband and wife and are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.980 of 2020 of Kasaba Police Station, Kozhikode, for having allegedly committed offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC. The prosecution case, in brief, is this:

2. The applicants are engaged in political activities and claimed to have connections with the management of the Zamorian's School, Thali, and using that contacts they succeeded in inducing the defacto complainant, a handicapped person, to deliver a sum of Rs. 20,50,000/- on the promise that he would be arranged a clerical job in the school through the management. The applicants convinced the defacto complainant by showing him the photographs of the applicants family with the members of the Zamorian's family, who were in the management of the school and hence the amounts were delivered through bank transactions and cheques. But, subsequently neither was the job provided nor they returned the amount and thus cheated the defacto complainant and misappropriated the entire amount. The applicants state that the allegations are not true and that it was a business transaction, in consequence of which, there were some financial dealings with the defacto complainant's father and it is also stated that there were some agreements in connection with those transactions. The defacto complainant had sent a notice to the applicants for return of the amount and for that a befitting reply was given by the applicants stating the true nature of the transactions of being a business transaction. And, therefore, the allegations of cheating and misappropriation will not be attracted according to the applicants. And, therefore, they seek pre-arrest bail.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicants, the learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant, as also the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The transaction as claimed by the defacto complainant is not admitted by the applicants. But, at the same time, the transaction of money between them are admitted. The father of the defacto complainant is also robbed in this transaction which they want to project as a business deal which has allegedly failed.

This is with the intention to bring about a civil nature dispute between the applicants and the defacto complainant. It is stated that there was no promise for providing a job to the defacto complainant as stated in the complaint. And, therefore, the allegation of cheating or misappropriation is not sustainable. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant submits that in the notice itself it is stated that the amounts were paid for providing job and the applicants are involved in similar offences with regard to other persons also and they as politicians had been successful in inducing several persons to pay around for providing jobs. It is also stated that two other cases for bouncing of cheques under Section138 of the NI Act are pending against the applicants. In one of the cases, they were absconding and an LP warrant had to be issued to secure their business. In answer to that, the learned counsel appearing for the applicants submit that the cheque cases have been settled and at present there is no warrant pending against them. They are willing to co-operate with the investigation. There is no possibility of their fleeing from justice. And, therefore, they may be granted a pre-arrest bail.

6. After having heard the submissions on both sides, I find that the applicants are persons involved in politics. And, therefore, they have a permanent place of residence. I don't see the possibility of their fleeing from justice. But, to ensure that, certain conditions can be imposed. But, the custodial interrogation of the applicants may not be necessary as the entire transaction is borne out from bank records, issuance of cheques etc.

7. In the result, the application is allowed and the applicants are directed to surren