IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 21ST MAY 2010 / 31ST VAISAKHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 1742 of 2010() -------------------------------------- CRIME NO.204/2005 OF AMBALAVAYAL POLICE STATION, KASARGOD DISTRICT. .......... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO. 2 -------------------------------------- HALEENA, AGED 49 YEARS, W/O.NASEER, VRINDAVAN, MANKARA P.O., VADAKKANCHERY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT/STATE -------------------------------- STATE, REP. BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, AMBALAVAYAL POLICE STATION, WAYANAD DISTRICT THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss K. HEMA, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 1742 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 21st day of May, 2010 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467 and 47 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioner is wife of the first accused and first accused allegedly borrowed an amount of Rs. 30,000/- from the de facto complainant and cheque was also issued, but the amount was not paid and thereby accused committed various offences. The cheque of the second accused was signed by first accused, by making the de facto complainant believe that it was his own cheque. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the second accused is innocent of the allegations made. She was hospitalised for a major operation on 07.01.2010, hence anticipatory bail may be granted, it is submitted. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that charge sheet was laid as early as on 21.01.2006 and the case was also taken on file by the Magistrate Court. B.A. No. 1742 of 2010 2 5. On hearing both sides, considering nature of allegations made, I am satisfied that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. However, if the petitioner appears before the Magistrate Court concerned and files an application for bail, she will be at liberty to take up the same contentions and bail application will be disposed of at the earliest, preferably on the same say. I make it clear that the consideration for granting bail under Section 473 of the Cr.P.C, are different from consideration for anticipatory bail. This petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE ln