IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2009 / 29TH SRAVANA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 4567 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.800/2009 OF CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 & 3 ------------------------------------------------ 1. A.F.XAVIER @ ANTONY XAVIER, AGED 65, S/O.AROGYASWAMY, NILGIRI DISTRICT, TAMILNADU STATE. 2. IQBAL, AGED 39, S/O.MUHAMMED, CHARUVILA PUTHENVEETIL, ARACKAL VILLGE, PATHANAPURAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.I.T.GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.4567 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of August, 2009 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 3 in Crime No.800 of 2009 of Central Police Station, Ernakulam. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that the accused persons, pretending as officers and employees belonging to the Indian Railways, made promise to offer a job in Indian Railways to the brother-in-law of the de facto complainant and collected more than Rs.3 lakhs from the de facto complainant. None of the accused persons is employed in Indian Railways. The de facto complainant was cheated and he was made to believe that if he paid money to the accused persons, a job would be arranged in the Indian Railways. BA No.4567/2009 2 4. The petitioners moved an application for anticipatory bail before the learned Sessions Judge. That application was dismissed by the order dated 30th July 2009. 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence and the allegations made against the petitioners, I do not think that this is a fit case where anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners. The petitioners are not entitled to any discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl