IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 22ND OCTOBER 2009 / 30TH ASWINA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 6063 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.256/2009 OF KOTTAYAM EAST POLICE STATION PETITIONER (S): 2ND ACCUSED: -------------------------------- STEFFY MARY GEORGE, D/O.GEORGE, PANIKKOTTU HOUSE, MUTTAMBALAM P.O., KANJIKUZHI, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.RAMPRASAD UNNI.T SRI.MANU TOM CHERUVALLY RESPONDENT(S): STATE & COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KOTTAYAM EAST POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.6063 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of October, 2009 ORDER The second accused in Crime No.256 of 2009 of Kottayam East Police Station has filed this application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner along with her husband (first accused) had filed Bail Application No.3151 of 2009 for the same relief. By the order dated 29th July 2009, Bail Application No.3151 of 2009 was dismissed by me. That order reads as follows: “This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.256 of 2009 of Kottayam East Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 24(1)(a)(b) of the Immigration Act. 3. The prosecution case is that the first accused, who was running an institution in the name and style “Amer Speak Institution”, collected huge amounts from several persons offering job abroad. They did not get job and they did not get back the money. The second accused is the wife of the first accused and the third accused is a person who claims rights over the Institution. According to the prosecution, the third accused is the Manager of the Institution. 4. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence and the allegations levelled against the petitioners, I do not think that this is a fit case where the petitioners are entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed.” BA No.6063/2009 2 2. I do not find any ground to consider the application filed by the second accused for the same relief which was declined as per the order dated 29th July 2009. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is prepared to surrender before court and apply for bail. The apprehension of the petitioner is that the court may not sometimes take into account the fact that she is a young lady with a child of tender years. I do not think that the petitioner could entertain this apprehension at this stage. We cannot expect that the court will not take into account the various provisions regarding the grant of bail and the protection given to the women under Section 437 of the Code of Criminal procedure. It is also not proper to think that criminal court is not aware of the decision of this Court in Biju vs. State of Kerala (2007(2) KLT 280). The Bail Application is disposed of as above. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl