KUNHIRAMAN K C Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main question posed in these cases is this: Can the de facto complainant or the aggrieved be heard or be impleaded in an application for anticipatory bail

(2.) Petitioner filed application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. as B.A.No. 778/2005 and B.A.No. 779/2005 on the allegation that he apprehends arrest in a non-bailable offence in view of the complaint filed by the Federal Bank against him under Section 420 I.P.C. According to the prosecution, the petitioner pledged with the bank certain spurious gold ornaments in the Bank over a period of few years and playing deception on the Bank obtained lakhs of rupees from the three branches of Federal Bank on different, dates. On noting the cheating, the Bank lodged a complaint before the respondent/police.

(3.) Petitions were filed by the Federal Bank to implead the Bank as respondent No. 2 in the bail applications as Crl.M.A.Nos. 2103 and 1864 of 2005 respectively. These were opposed by the petitioner.