IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH AUGUST 2011 / 2ND BHADRA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 6222 of 2011 CRIME NO.1067 OF 2011 OF IRINJALAKUDA POLICE STATION, THRISSUR PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 ------------------------------------------- SANJEEV, S/O. KESAVAN, PROPRIETOR, M/S. SREYAS EXIM, 37/3591, 1ST FLOOR, V.K. KARUNAKARAN SMARAKA LANE, KALOOR, KOCHI-682017. BY ADV. SRI.C.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENT: STATE -------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.MANU THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ Bail Appl. NO. 6222 OF 2011 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 24th day of August, 2011 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.1 in Crime No.1067 of 2011 of Irinjalakuda Police Station, Thrissur District. 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 the following: Accused No.1 promised to take the de facto complainant, his brother-in-law and cousin to Afghanisthan to secure a job there and took a total sum of `3,75,000/- from them. They were taken to Dubai, but they could not go to Afghanisthan. They returned to India. The allegation is that the accused cheated them. 4. When the Bail Application came up for hearing on 10.8.2011, the following order was passed: BAIL APPL. NO.6222 OF 2011 :: 2 :: “3. The Bail Application was argued in detail. When the Bail Application was about to be dismissed, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is prepared to settle the disputes with the de facto complainant and his relatives by repaying the amounts after meeting the expenses. The petitioner is prepared to appear before the investigating officer so that the de facto complainant and others can be summoned and a settlement could be arrived at. The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer on 19th August, 2011. The investigating officer shall direct the de facto complainant and two other persons who paid the amount to appear before him on 19.8.2011 so that the parties can try to settle the disputes. 4. Post on 24.8.2011. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner will not be arrested in connection with Crime No.1067 of 2011 of Irinjalakuda Police Station, till 26th August, 2011. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this order before the investigating officer on or before 16th August, 2011.” 5. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the accused BAIL APPL. NO.6222 OF 2011 :: 3 :: did not comply with the facility extended to him by the order dated 10.8.2011. However, the de facto complainant appeared before the investigating officer. Since the petitioner did not turn up, no settlement talk could be undertaken. 6. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to get the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The matter requires investigation. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be required in the case. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, it would adversely affect the proper and smooth investigation of the case. The petitioner also did not comply with the direction in the order dated 10.8.2011. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/