IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 21ST JULY 2008 / 30TH ASHADHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 4578 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.790/07 OF IRINJALAKUDA POLICE STATION PETITIONER ----------------- SUNDEEPKUMAR V., S/O.VASUDEVAN, CHENAMPULLY HOUSE, THRIKKEDERY OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) RESPONDENTS: --------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, IRINJALAKUDA POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 4578 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st July, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. According to prosecution, the petitioner committed offence under Section 408 of Indian Penal Code. He collected more than Rs. 1,00,000/- and two cheque leaf from the dealers towards the payment of audio and video cassettes. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that there is some difference of opinion between de facto complainant and the petitioner, in connection with non-payment of salary for five months. Hence, a false complaint is filed against the petitioner, anticipating some action from the side of the petitioner, it is submitted. It is also submitted that the charge sheet has been filed. 4. On hearing both sides, it is clear that the complaint was lodged as early as on 17.10.2007 and the charge sheet has already been laid showing the petitioner as an absconding accused. Therefore, necessarily, warrant would have been issued against the petitioner by the Magistrate Court. Hence, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner because it will interfere with the lawful proceedings of the court below. This petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.