IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 25TH AUGUST 2011 / 3RD BHADRA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 6661 of 2011 CRIME NO.224 OF 2011 OF EDAVANNA POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM. PETITIONER/6TH ACCUSED ------------------------------------------ P.MURALI, S/O. KUTTAN, CHELAKKUNNUMMAL HOUSE, THIRUVALI.P.O. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN SRI.T.R.TARIN RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT/STATE -------------------------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, EDAVANNA POLICE STATION. PIN-676508. 2. STATE REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ Bail Appl. NO. 6661 OF 2011 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 25th day of August, 2011 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.6 in Crime No.224 of 2011 of Edavanna Police Station, Malappuram District. 2. The offences alleged against the accused are under Sections 409 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 and 5 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act. 3. The prosecution case is that the de facto complainant was made to believe by the accused persons including the petitioner that if the de facto complainant deposited amounts in the Verizon Builders & Developers Limited, he would get `1.25 lakhs per week and `5 lakhs per month. The de facto complainant paid `1,10,000/-. However, no profit as assured was paid. The principal amount was also not repaid. BAIL APPL. NO. 6661 OF 2011 :: 2 :: 4. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to get the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The matter requires investigation. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be required in the case. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, it would adversely affect the proper and smooth investigation of the case. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/