IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2010 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 2213 of 2010() ----------------------------------------- (CRIME NO.132/10 OF MANANTHAVADY POLICE STATION, WAYANAD DISTRICT) ....... PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------ C.RAZAQ,S/O.ABU,AGED 44 YEARS, CHUNDAKKAL HOUSE,PANAMARAM AMSOM DESOM. PANAMARAM P.O.,MANATHAVADY TALUK, WAYANAD DIST. BY ADV. SRI.ELDHO PAUL RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANATHAVADY, POLICE STATION, MANANTHAVADY, WAYANAD DISTRICT. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. V. TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K. HEMA, J ---------------------- B.A.No. 2213 OF 2010 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of May, 2010 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 420 and 34 IPC. According to prosecution, defacto complainant went to police station and informed in writing that petitioner (A2) along with first accused promised to sell gold ornaments received as “treasure” for an amount of Rs.25,000/- and defacto complainant handed over Rs.25,000/-, believing the false representation. But, subsequently, he got information that the accused are in the habit of cheating other persons showing spurious gold and the police party went to the place where petitioners agreed to come for handing over gold ornaments and police party arrested accused and collected gold from their possession. Second petitioner ran away. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that as per B.A. No.2213/10 2 allegations in the first information statement, defacto complainant had only suspicion about accused engaged in spurious gold and that is only hearsay. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned public prosecutor submitted that on the facts and circumstances of this case, petitioner's interrogation is absolutely necessary and this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that considering the serious nature of allegations made against the petitioner, this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail and petitioner is needed for custodial interrogation. Hence, this petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Sou.