IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2009 / 6TH SRAVANA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 3683 of 2009() ----------------------------- NO CRIME REGISTERED YET PETITIONER --------------------- MUBARAK, AGED 36 YEARS, NALANDA NAGAR, HOUSE NO.77, THIRUMULLAVARAM. BY ADV. SRI. K.SHAJ SRI.SAJJU.S RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.3683 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of July, 2009 ORDER The petitioner has moved this application for anticipatory bail apprehending arrest by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kollam, on an accusation that the petitioner has committed a non bailable offence. One Manoj had gone to Malasia. It is alleged that the petitioner took Manoj to Malasia assuring him a job there. The whereabouts of Manoj are not known to his mother, who is the defacto complainant. It is alleged that the petitioner has committed an offence under Section 365 of the Indian Penal Code and has detained Manoj. According to the petitioner, Manoj is in Malasia and he is presently in jail there. 2. Learned public prosecutor submitted that the petitioner is not made an accused in any crime on the basis of the information given by the mother of Manoj. The police wanted to get relevant information from the petitioner and he was summoned to appear before the police. The petitioner has not complied with the request and he is avoiding appearance BA No.3683/2009 2 before the police. 3. The petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.1668 of 2009 before the court of Sessions, Kollam, under Section 438 Crl.P.C. Learned Sessions Judge noticed that notice was issued by the police to the petitioner requiring him to be present before the police station. But, the petitioner has not complied with the same. Anticipatory bail was not granted to the petitioner by the learned Sessions Judge. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl