IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2008 / 27TH SRAVANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 5122 of 2008() ----------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN BA.7687/2007 RC 15(A)/07 CBI-SPEC. COCHIN PETITIONER : ACCUSED ------------------------ JOBBY V.MATHEW, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.MATHEW, KALLEPARAMBIL, PATTITHANAM PO, ETTUMANUR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.AVM.SALAHUDIN SMT.VIJAYAKUMARI RESPONDENTS: ------------- CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, SPE, COCHIN. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.S.NAMBOOTHIRY,SC, C.B.I. FOR R1 THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No.5122 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th August, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. This is the second time that an application for anticipatory bail is filed by the petitioner. Petitioner is the fourth accused in the crime. According to prosecution, petitioner, along with other officials of the Bank hatched a conspiracy, forged documents and using the same huge amount of loans were issued to several persons and some of whom were found to be bogus. Therefore, a crime was registered against the petitioner and others under Sections 120B and 420 of Indian Penal Code. About more than an Rs.4 crores were swindled in the manner alleged. 3. On the same set of facts, an earlier application was filed by the petitioner which was numbered as B.A.No.7687 of 2007, more than one-and-a-half year back and the petition was dismissed as per order dated 2.1.2008. Learned counsel for petitioner, at the time of hearing of the said petition, asserted that the allegation that the petitioner has been absconding is incorrect. After hearing both sides, another Bench of this Court observed in that order as follows: BA.5122/08 2 “Suffice it to say that on an anxious consideration of all the relevant inputs, I am unable to find any circumstance justifying or warranting the invocation of the extra ordinary equitable discretion under section 438 Cr.P.C in favour of the petitioner. This, I agree with the Standing counsel for CBE, is a fit case where the petitioner must be directed to appear before the Investigator or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the ordinary course.” 4. This court also observed that if the petitioner appears before the learned Magistrate and applies for bail, after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor-in-charge of the case, the learned Magistrate must proceed to pass orders on merit in accordance with law expeditiously. The petitioner has not chosen to adopt the method proposed by this Court. During the hearing of this case also this court, directed the petitioner to be present before this court, but it is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner is unavailable since he is abroad and he is unable to appear before this Court. 5. After hearing both sides, I am satisfied that this is not to invoke discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C in favour of a person who did not act in accordance with the observation in the earlier order of this Court and who absconded thereafter also. Anticipatory bail is not a remedy which can be extended to an accused who has absconded even without acting in accordance with BA.5122/08 3 the observations of this Court in the earlier order dated 2.1.2008 in B.A.No.7687 of 2007. The crime is registered in 2007 and though application for anticipatory bail was dismissed as early as on 2.1.2008, the petitioner has not made himself available for interrogation, which the Court found is a necessity, on the facts and circumstances of this case. I do not find any reason to come to a different finding than what is observed in the earlier order. It is made clear that any subsequent anticipatory bail application, if any, filed by the petitioner will not be entertained by this Court again. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.