IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 18TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 27TH BHADRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 5730 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.176/2008 OF PALLIKKATHODU POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ 2ND ACCUSED ---------------------------------------- SOBHAKUMAR.G, S/O.GOPINATHAN NAIR, SUN RISE MEDIA VISION, GOMATHY NIVAS, CHENTHITTA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL SRI.N.P.PRAJEESH RESPONDENT: STATE/ COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------------------------- B.A.No.5730 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of September, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. According to prosecution, petitioner who is the second accused along with first accused promised to provide a job to defacto complainant's son in Gulf country and fraudulently obtained a huge amount from him. Thereafter, neither the job was procured as promised nor the money was returned. Though a cheque was issued by the petitioner, it was dishonoured and hence, the complaint was lodged based on which a crime was registered under Sections 420 and 34 IPC. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the defacto complainant's son obtained a job in Gulf country though not through the petitioner or the first accused. But, thereafter, a complaint is lodged against the petitioner also and he is absolutely innocent of the allegations made, it is submitted. As per the complaint, the allegations are made against the first accused and not against the second accused. Petitioner has nothing to do with the offence and money was actually returned BA No.5857/08 2 to the defacto complainant's son and in spite of all these, prosecution is continuing. Petitioner apprehends arrest and hence, anticipatory bail may be granted, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned public prosecutor submitted that specific allegation is made against the petitioner also. He has also allegedly received the money and the money was not returned. Even the cheque is issued by the petitioner but it was dishonoured. 5. After hearing both sides and on considering the nature of allegations made and the involvement of the petitioner in the crime, I am not satisfied that it is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. The petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE csl