IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 9TH MARCH 2010 / 18TH PHALGUNA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 3850 of 2009() --------------------------------------- CRMP.1741/2009 of DISTRICT COURT, ALAPPUZHA CRIME NO.346/2009 OF ALAPPUZHA POLICE STATION. .................... PETITIONER/ ACCUSED: --------------------------------------- K.A.RAJU, AGED 38 YEARS, KARIKKALAM HOUSE, THATHAMPALLY PO, ALAPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.RAJENDRAN NAIR SRI.C.S.MANU RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALAPPUZHA NORTH POLICE STATION. SRI. M.S. BREEZ, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 3850 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 9th 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 the accused in Crime No.346/2009 of Alappuzha North Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 420, 408 , 465, 468 and 471 of the Indian penal Code. 3. The de facto complainant filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Alappuzha. The complaint was forwarded to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, the crime was registered. 4. When the Bail Application came up for hearing, the de facto complaint appeared through counsel and the parties agreed to refer the matter to the Lok Adalath. Accordingly, the matter was placed before the Lok Adalath. However, the dispute was not settled. Again, time was granted to the petitioner to settle the dispute. A suggestion was made by the petitioner that he was prepared to pay a sum of Rs. 1,10,000/- to the de facto complainant in full and final settlement. The de facto complainant B.A. No. 3850 / 2009 2 was of the view that the petitioner had misappropriated the amounts belonging to the de facto complainant and the total amount will come to more than Rs.3,00,000/-. 5. While the Bail Application was adjourned from time to time to facilitate settlement, the petitioner left India, without informing the Court. It is stated that now the petitioner is in Kuwait. The conduct of the petitioner is far from satisfactory. Having filed an application for anticipatory bail and having got an interim order under some pretext or other, the petitioner has now gone abroad and thus he has successfully defeated the due process of law. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he was also not informed by the petitioner that he was about to leave India. 7. A person staying in Kuwait cannot have any apprehension that Alappuzha police would arrest him, within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Kerala. Therefore, the Bail Application is misconceived and it is not maintainable. Accordingly, the Bail Application is dismissed. The B.A. No. 3850 / 2009 3 petitioner will have no right to file another Bail Application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in this case at any future point of time. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm