IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 11TH DECEMBER 2008 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7495 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.452/08 IN PEROORKKADA POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- C.JAYAN, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.CHELLAPPAN, ASWATHI BHAVAN, KADAVUCHIRA LANE, KUDAVOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH. K.RAJU SRI.INNOCENT FRANCIS PAPALI RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. THE S.I. OF POLICE, SREEKARYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE S.I. OF POLICE, PEROORKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. B.PRATHEESH CHANDRAN, PREETHA NIVAS, CHERUVAYKKAL, SREEKARYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 7495 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th December, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 468, 471 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioner is a Director of an institution registered under the Travancore Cochin Literary Scientific and Charitable Registration Act. He, along with other Directors, made fraudulent representation to de facto complainant that he will be offered a job and obtained Rs.13,000/- and though a job was given, the promised salary was not paid. He was also not appointed as Technical Assistant as promised. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the police is harassing petitioner. The earlier application for anticipatory bail was disposed of by this Court recording the submission of learned Public Prosecutor that no crime is registered against petitioner and that the police has no intention to arrest petitioner. But, even after the disposal of the said application, as per Annexure-2 order, the police is coming in search of petitioner. It is also submitted that the police is aiding de facto complainant and that it is a counter blast to the complaint made by the employees of the institution against de facto complainant. BA.7495/08 2 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that at the time when the earlier application for anticipatory bail was filed, petitioner was not intended to be arrested, since no crime was registered. But later, a private complaint was filed, which was forwarded under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C and a crime was registered against petitioner under various sections. It is also submitted that the nature of allegations are serious and it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. 5. On hearing both sides, I find that though it is submitted that it is a counter blast etc., it is not clear to me as to how this case is a counter blast. It also appears to me that that there is no substance in the allegations made against police harassment, because police is bound to proceed against petitioner having registered a crime against petitioner, on the basis of a private complaint, which is forwarded under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. When no crime was registered, it was made clear by police that they do not intend to arrest petitioner. Petitioner is required for interrogation and for the purpose of investigation. I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail. The crime is registered as early as on 27.11.2008 and petitioner is required for the purpose of investigation. BA.7495/08 3 Petitioner is directed to surrender before the investigating officer without any delay and co- operate with the investigation. Whether petitioner surrenders or not, police is at liberty to arrest petitioner at any time and proceed in accordance with law. With this direction, petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.