IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 9TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 18TH KARTHIKA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 6511 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.151/05 OF NADAKKAVU POLICE STATION CRIME NO.118/07 OF CBCID, THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 ------------------------------------------- BABU.N.B, AGED 38 YRS, S/O.BALAN, NAMBATH HOUSE, KAKKASSERY, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.M.ANIL KUMAR SMT.PREETHI K.PURUSHOTHAMAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DY.SUPDT. OF C.B.C.I.D., KOZHIKODE, (CRIME NO.151/05 OF NADAKAVU P.S, CRIME NO.118/07 OF C.B.C.I.D.) REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.6511 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of November, 2009 ORDER This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.2 in Crime No.151 of 2005 of Nadakkavu Police Station. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner and the other accused is under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The gist of the prosecution case is the following: The first accused was working as the manager of Integrated Stock Broking Services. The petitioner was working as the marketing executive of the company. The allegation is that the accused persons offered huge return for the money deposited by customers and collected nearly 5 crores of rupees. The amount was not paid back to the customers. The prosecution alleges that the petitioner and others misappropriated a sum of Rs.44 lakhs and they did not account the same in the company accounts. It is also alleged by the prosecution that the manager of the company filed a petition against the petitioner and others. BA No.6511/2009 2 4. The learned Magistrate as well as the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the applications submitted by the petitioner for bail on the main ground that the petitioner was absconding from 2005 to 2009. The alleged incident took place in 2005. Since the petitioner was absconding, he could be arrested only on 14.9.2009 and he was remanded to judicial custody. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that if the petitioner is released on bail at this stage, he would make himself scarce. 5. The offence alleged is that crores of rupees were amassed by the accused persons cheating the depositors. The allegation is that the petitioner in his capacity as the marketing manager not only cheated the defacto complainant and other depositors, but the petitioner has even cheated the company by not depositing the amounts in the company. The allegation is that he has thus misappropriated a sum of Rs.44 lakhs along with his friends. 6. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case that the petitioner was not available from 2005 to September 2009, I am inclined to accept the contention raised by BA No.6511/2009 3 the learned Public Prosecutor that if the petitioner is released on bail, the court would not be able to secure his presence. It is submitted that the investigation is progressing. At this stage, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner in the light of the facts and circumstances mentioned above. The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl