IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 19TH JULY 2010 / 28TH ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 2860 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.1393/2009 OF KODUNGALLUR POLICE STATION, THRISSUR. (S): APPLICANT/ACCUSED ------------------------------------- VARDHANAN.P.R.,AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.RAJAN P.K.,PULIKKAL HOUSE, POST KANNIKULANGARA,PUTHENCHIRA VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.P.M.RAFIQ RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING THE S.I.OF POLICE,KODUNGALLUR POLICE STATION. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ---------------------------------------------- Bail Application No.2860 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 19th July, 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, petitioner (A2) and first accused, as Managing Director and Chairman of a financial institution, with intention to cheat defacto complainant and various others, received an amount of Rs.1.5 crores in total, and thereafter, the money was not returned. The company was closed down on 25.11.2009. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that defacto complainant is an employee of petitioner. He had given some money to petitioner, but it was not claimed within the period of limitation and hence, it has become time barred. Several other depositors had moved the court for liquidation of the company. The defacto complainant alone has given a criminal complaint. The amount could not be paid only because of financial stringency, since the company went on loss. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail BA NO. 2860/10 2 application and submitted that not only the defacto complainant, but various others were also cheated by petitioner and another. A total amount of Rs.1.5 crores are to be returned to various persons by petitioner, but the company was closed down with a view to cheat defacto complainant and others. There are no materials in the case diary to show that defacto complainant is an employee of petitioner, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides and on considering the relevant aspects, I do not think that this is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioner has not made out any ground to get anticipatory bail. Petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer and co-operate with the investigation. No further application for anticipatory bail by petitioner in this crime will be entertained by this court hereafter. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. tgs