IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 12TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 23RD MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 261 of 2009() ---------------------------- CRIME NO. 1309/2008 OF TIRUR POLICE STATION PETITIONER (S): ACCUSED:- -------------------- 1. SOBHANA, W/O. VELAYUDHAN, CHIRACKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, B.P. ANGADI, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DIST. 2. VELAYUDHAN, S/O. KALI, MOOCHIKOOTTATHICL, IRUMBLIYAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI SRI.R.SREEHARI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TIRUR POLICE STATION, TIRUR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= B.A. No. 261 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 12th day of February, 2009 O R D E R Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 465, 468, 409, 420 read with section 34 IPC. According to prosecution, 1st petitioner (A1) was working in a financial institution and she, in furtherance of common intention with her husband, misappropriated the funds of the institution and thereby caused loss to the institution and also cheated de facto complainant. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that earlier petitioners filed B.A. no. 7386/2008 and the said application was partly allowed, after considering the contentions raised by petitioners. The 2nd accused was granted anticipatory bail and the prayer for anticipatory bail by the 1st accused was rejected and she was directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer and co-operate with the investigation without delay. The said direction is not complied with by 1st accused and by suppressing the filing of the said anticipatory application, this petition is filed by petitioners. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that this petition is filed suppressing the fact that earlier application was disposed of by this Court. The conduct itself dissuades this Court from BA 261/2009 -2- granting anticipatory bail to petitioner, since such suppression cannot be encouraged or appreciated. Since on considering the nature of the allegations made, I have already passed an order in a petition filed by both the petitioners, I do not intend to review the said order and this petition is only to be dismissed. Hence, the following order is passed:- 1) No further application for anticipatory bail by petitioners in this crime will be entertained by this Court. This petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. mn.