IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2010 / 13TH JYAISTHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3229 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.278/10 OF KOIPURAM POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA (S): PETITIONER/ACCUSED NOS. 1 & 2 ------------------------------------------------- 1. P.A.SEBASTIAN, AGED 65 YEARS, PALATHINKAL HOUSE, KALAYILPADI, NALUKODI.P.O., CHANGANACHERRY. 2. TINSON SEBASTIAN, AGED 38 YEARS PALATHINKAL HOUSE, KALAYILPADI, NALUKODI.P.O., CHANGANACHERRY. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOIPURAM POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEK CHAND. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ---------------------------------------------- Bail Application No.3229 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 3rd June, 2010. O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, accused borrowed an amount of Rs.4 lakhs from defacto complainant and for discharge of the same, a cheque was issued by first accused. On presentation of the cheque, it was dishonoured and hence, a complaint was filed, alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against first accused. Later, it has come to the knowledge of defacto complainant that the cheque issued by first accused was that of second accused and they have, in furtherance of common intention cheated defacto complainant and caused wrongful loss to defacto complainant. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that a complaint was filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and later, this complaint is filed. It is also submitted that as per the present allegation, the amount was BA NO.3229/10 2 borrowed by both the accused. It is also pointed out that the cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that first accused issued a cheque, which belonged to second accused and the offence was committed by both the accused, in furtherance of common intention. 5. On hearing both sides and considering the serious nature of the allegations made, I am satisfied that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. tgs