IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 7TH ASWINA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 7813 of 2011() -------------------------------------- (CRIME No.316/2007 OF THAMARASSERY POLICE STATION) PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ------------------ SONY GEORGE, AGE 36, MANAKKUNNEL KULASSERIL HOUSE, MATHIRAPPILLIKARAYIL KOTHAMANGALAM AMSO DESOM. BY ADV. SRI.LUIZ GODWIN D'COUTH RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: --------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE THAMARASSERY, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. V. TEK CHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: AMG K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Bail Appln.No.7813 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of September, 2011 ORDER This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.55 of 2009 on the file of the court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Thamarassery, Kozhikode District. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that the petitioner promised visa to the de facto complainant and two others to go to England and collected a sum of Rupees Two lakhs. The visa was not arranged and the amount was not repaid. The allegation is that the petitioner cheated de facto complainant and others. 4. The petitioner was granted bail by the Court. Later, he did not appear before Court. Warrant was issued against the petitioner and he was produced before Court. The petitioner moved an application for bail before the court of the Bail Appln.No.7813/2011 : 2 : Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Thamarassery. The Bail Application was dismissed by a detailed order dated 24th August, 2011. Paragraph Nos.3 and 4 of the order passed by the learned Magistrate read as follows:- “3. The case was taken on file and summons was issued against the accused. As the accused failed to appear before court warrant was issued against him and later on 9.3.2010 he was produced from Central Prison Viyyur on production warrant and was remanded to judicial custody. Subsequently he was released on bail. Later as the counsel has reported no instruction warrant was issued against him and notice to his sureties were issued. The report of the police shows that the sureties had reported the police that they did not stand as sureties to the accused herein, but somebody had played impersonation in their names. Subsequently when the accused was arrested and produced before court he was enquired about the genuiness of the sureties offered by him. But he has reported that while he was in custody somebody else had moved the bail application due to which he could not have an occasion to come in contact with the sureties. As the Bail Appln.No.7813/2011 : 3 : liability for offering false sureties could not be fixed on anybody and the presence of the accused was secured for trial, no action was taken for impersonation. 4. Now the accused has again filed this bail application. If he is again released on bail, it is sure that he will abscond and his presence will not be secured for trial. Also court cannot rely on the sureties which the accused shall offer. In the context the bail application is dismissed.” 5. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner is involved in seven crimes registered at Kothamangalam Police Station. It is submitted that the petitioner is involved in several other cases registered in various police stations. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, if the petitioner is released on bail, there is every chance of the petitioner making himself scarce. The petitioner was granted bail by the court, but he was not prepared to comply with the conditions and appear before court. Going by the allegations, records were also manipulated for the grant of bail. The petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary relief. Bail Appln.No.7813/2011 : 4 : 7. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. The learned Magistrate shall expedite the trial of the case, since the petitioner is in judicial custody. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE skj