IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2008 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6453 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.281/08 OF KARAMANA POLICE STATION PETITIONER -------------------- ROHITH JOHN, S/O.LATE RAJENDRAN, GRA-526, GOWREESAPATTOMP.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT. -------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR SRI.J.S.AJITHKUMAR FOR DE FACTO COMPLAINANT THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 6453 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th October, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioner made false representation to the de facto complainant and promised to get admission for his son in St.John's Medical College, Bangalore and procured Rs.16 lakhs from him by deceiving de facto complainant with the dishonest intention and fraudulent representations. When demands were made, Rs.7 lakhs were returned, but the balance is still not returned. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner and de facto complainant are friends and they had some money transactions between them. De facto complainant owed Rs.7 lakhs to petitioner and a lawyer notice was issued on 15.8.2008 as per Annexure-III, demanding return of Rs.7 lakhs given by him by way of demand draft. A reply, Annexure-IV, was sent. Thereafter, petitioner filed Annexure-VIII complaint dated 2.9.2008 before the police. later, Annexure-IX complaint was filed before the court on 8.9.2008 and it was forwarded to police, based on which Crime BA.6453/08 2 No.355/2008 was registered against de facto complainant under Section 420 IPC. FIR is Annexure-XI. 4. It is also submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that it is only after filing of complaint dated 2.9.2008 that the present complaint is lodged against the petitioner on 4.9.2008 as Annexure- I. The de facto complainant himself admitted in the complaint that Rs.7 lakhs was paid by petitioner to him. He was taking advantage of the payment of Rs.7 lakhs advanced by the petitioner by a demand draft as a loan to him. As per the allegations, Rs.16 lakhs were advanced to the de facto complainant on several dates from 5.6.2008 to 4.7.2008. Though huge amount of money was allegedly paid by de facto complainant, the complaint is highly belated, it is pointed out. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail by this Court as per order dated 7.10.2008 in B.A.No.5238/08. 5. This petition is opposed. Learned counsel for de facto complainant is also heard. It is submitted by learned Public Prosecutor that petitioner is involved in similar crimes. He has been cheating others by mis-representing himself as Minister Sri.M.A.Baby, son of Sri.Varkala Radhakrishnan, Sri.Pinarani Vijayan, a lawyer etc. and other crimes are also registered. Sri.Varkala Radhakrishnan himself has sent a complaint to the BA.6453/08 3 Director General of Police and the matter is being enquired into. The other crimes are registered against petitioner for similar offences and it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that it is true that as per order in B.A.No.5238/08 anticipatory bail was granted to petitioner, but it was in a different crime. The allegations are different in nature from the allegations now made. It was in connection with a property transaction. It is also submitted that the order itself speaks the grounds for granting bail in the other crime. 6. On hearing both sides, taking into consideration the nature of allegations made and the nature of investigation required, I find that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.