IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 9TH JULY 2010 / 18TH ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3348 of 2010(E) ----------------------------------------- (CRIME NO. 132/10 OF MUKKAM POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DIST.,) .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2: ------------------------------------------ ABDUL HAMEED, AGED 40 YEARS, THARIPPATAM KANDIYIL HOUSE, P.O.KADAVATHOOR, THARIPPANKOTTOOR, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.G.UNNIKRISHNAN, SRI.V.JOHN SEBASTIAN RALPH. RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS: ------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. S.I. OF POLICE, MUKKAM POLICE STATION. (IN CR.NO.132/2010 OF MUKKAM POLICE STATION, CALICUT DISTRICT). R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. M.S. BREEZ. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/07/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. K.HEMA, J ----------------------- B.A No.3348 OF 2010 -------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of July 2010 ORDER This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 406, 420 r/w 120(B) of IPC. According to prosecution, petitioner (A2) and first accused approached several persons and made them believed by making false representations that if they were to give money, it would be invested in a business and huge profit will be raised and paid to them etc. Thus, they induced several persons pay huge amounts to the accused. They also issued receipts. But, accused did not act as promised and the money which was collected from various persons was also not returned. Thereby, all those persons were cheated by petitioners in furtherance of common intention. Several crimes were registered against the accused on complaints of different persons. This is one such complaint. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is the second accused and he has not issued any receipts to de facto complainant and petitioner's custodial interrogation is not necessary in this case. 4. This petition is strongly opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that 21 cases are already registered against petitioner for similar crimes. Several persons are cheated B.A No.3346 OF 2010 2 by petitioner and first accused. Receipts were also issued for having received money and investigation is in progress and petitioner's custodial interrogation is necessary to ascertain several facts relating to the offence. This is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. 5. On hearing both sides, I find that the complicity of petitioner in the offence can be better revealed by custodial interrogation and it is necessary that he is subjected to custodial interrogation. Considering the serious nature of allegations made. I do not think that this is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioner is implicated in several cases instituted by different persons for having acted in similar manner and cheating the various persons. Petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer and co-operate with investigation without any delay. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA JUDGE vdv