IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2010 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 902 of 2010() ----------------------------------------- CRIME NO.777/2009 OF THAMPANOOR POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------- K.S.MATHAI, S/O.SAMUEL, AGED 63 YEARS, CHARIKAL VEEDU, VAIPOR VILLAGE, MALLAPPALLY, PATHANAMTHITTA (DIST). BY ADV. SRI.RAFFEEKH.K RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THAMPANOOR POLICE STATION,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. SRI. M.S. BREEZ, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 902 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 24th day of March, 2010 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.3 in Crime No.777/2009 of Thampanoor Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that in the year 2009, the accused persons had collected various amounts from 13 persons for arranging Visa to go abroad. A sum of Rs.90,000/- was collected from the de facto complainant. It is alleged that total amount collected by the accused from various persons would come to Rs.11,20,000/-. The persons to whom Visas were offered were directed to go to the Airport at Thiruvananthapuram. They went there. Photostat copies of the air tickets and other documents were shown to them. Later, the accused persons did not turn up. The de facto B.A. No. 902/2010 2 complainant and the other victims could not go abroad. The amount taken from them was also not returned by the accused. 4. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that this is a fit case where anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. The petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm