IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2010 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 1660 of 2010 ST.NO.1511/2008 of J.M.F.C.,KOLENCHERRY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- SOBI GEORGE, COCHIN KALAGRAHAM, KALABHAVAN ROAD, ERNAKULAM NORTH. BY ADV. SRI.S.SUDHEESHKAR SRI.S.ABHILASH RESPONDENTS: STATE -------------------- 1. MARY THOMAS, W/O.M.P.THOMAS, MAROTTIKAL HOUSE, KAYANADU P.O., PUTHENCRUZE. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 1660 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 19th day of March, 2010 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused in S.T.No.1511 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kolencherry, Ernakulam District. 2. S.T.No.1511 of 2008 is a complaint filed by Mary Thomas under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It was alleged that a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- was borrowed by the petitioner from the complainant and the cheque issued by the petitioner in discharge of the liability, was dishonoured. 3. On 10.6.2009, the evidence was closed and the case was posted for hearing to 17.6.2009. Thereafter, the petitioner did not appear before the Magistrate's Court. Non-bailable warrant issued against the petitioner is pending. The petitioner apprehends arrest in execution of the non-bailable warrant. Therefore, he has moved this application for anticipatory bail. 4. Advocate Sheji Abraham appeared for the de facto complainant. He submitted that after the posting of the case to B.A. NO. 1660 OF 2010 :: 2 :: 10.6.2009, the case before the Magistrate's Court was posted on more than fifteen occasions in 2009 itself. The petitioner did not appear. When the warrant was pending, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.25315 of 2009 and obtained an interim order from the High Court. Later, W.P.(C) No.25315 of 2009 was dismissed by the judgment dated 14.9.2009. A submission was made before the High Court on behalf of the petitioner herein that after adjusting the payment of Rupees One lakh already made, the petitioner was prepared to pay the whole balance amount within two months. Even though that submission was not accepted by the learned single Judge who disposed of the Writ Petition, the two months' period is over by 14.11.2009. Even now the amount is not paid. The petitioner has not appeared before the Court also. 5. In the facts and circumstances mentioned above, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to any discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/