IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2010 / 18TH JYAISTHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 2061 of 2010() ------------------------------------- (CRIME No.307/10 OF ALUVA POLICE STATION) APPLICANT/ACCUSED No.3 : --------------------------------------- FASEELA, D/O. BAVA, AGED 27, RESIDING AT 13/404, PANAYAPPALLY, KOCHI. BY ADV. SRI.M.H.HANIS RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT --------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. V. TEK CHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 2061 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of June, 2010 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, first and second accused collected Rs. 2,00,000/- from the de facto complainant promising to secure a job abroad for his son, but no job was arranged. Thereafter, utilising the money, household articles were purchased in the name of third accused. A car was also purchased in the name of third accused with the amount collected. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner(A3) is not involved in any offence and she has not used any money, which is collected from de facto complainant. Only because the household articles are purchased in the name of petitioner, she is not answerable for any criminal offence, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that charge sheet is laid and most probably summons would have been issued by the trial court. Hence, petitioner may B.A. No. 2061 of 2010 2 approach the trial court for bail, it is submitted. It is also pointed out that first accused is a person who is involved in 56 other crimes of similar nature and he is residing with petitioner in a house which is taken on rent with the amount collected. 5. On hearing both sides, considering the serious nature of the allegations made, I do not think it fit to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioner has not made out any exceptional circumstances to grant the relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE ln