IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 7TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 16TH KARTHIKA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6821 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO. 524/2008 OF TOWN SOUTH POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED:- ------------------------------ JAGADEESH MENON, 45 YEARS S/O.LATE PADMANABHA MENON, A-7, ANJALI GARDENS PALLIPURAM P.O., PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.A.F.SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE TOWN SOUTH POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD. BY P.P. SRI K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A. No. 6821 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 7th day of November,2008 O R D E R Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under section 420 IPC. According to prosecution, petitioner was running a travel agency. He received Rs.60,000/- from de facto complainant by making fraudulent representations and promising that visa will be arranged for his son. But, amount was not paid back nor visa was arranged. Hence, the complaint. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that de facto complainant was working as a driver in petitioner's travel agency and he wanted a visa for his son. He requested petitioner to introduce him to one of his friends who came to the travel agency. Accordingly, de facto complainant was introduced. Thereafter, a recruitment was made by the said friend but in the meantime, de facto complainant was caught red handed for stealing articles from other employees and he was dismissed from service. Thereafter, de facto complainant's son was not recruited, since he was not qualified. But, de facto complainant was under the impression that petitioner is instrumental for BA 6821 /08 -2- blocking the chance of de facto complainant's son and hence a false complaint was lodged against petitioner, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the nature of allegations made in the complaint is serious and it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Though petitioner would contend that de facto complainant was a driver who was dismissed on allegation of theft, etc., there is absolutely no material or circumstance to support these allegations. 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied of the submissions made by learned Public Prosecutor. Though counter allegations are made and a specific motive is attributed to de facto complainant, learned counsel for petitioner could not substantiate such contentions. Not even a circumstance or point out to convince the court that there was a specific motive for commission of the offence. On considering the nature of the allegations made, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. The crime was registered as early as on 4-10-2008 and petitioner was not available for investigation. Hence, petitioner is directed to surrender before the Magistrate court concerned or before the Investigating Officer without any delay and co- BA 6821 /08 -3- operate with the investigation. Whether he surrenders or not, police is at liberty to arrest petitioner at any time and proceed in accordance with law. With this direction, this petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. mn.