IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2009 / 2ND ASHADHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 3180 of 2009() ---------------------------------------- CRMP.701/2009 of DISTRICT COURT, KASARAGOD CRIME NO. 209/2009 OF KASARAGOD POLICE STATOIN .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.6: ------------------------------------------- SUHAIL AHAMMED, S/O. AHAMMED HAJI, AGED 26 YEARS, BUSINESS, RESIDING AT FANZANA MANZIL, POST MUTTATHODY, VIDYANAGAR, KASARGOD. BY ADV. SRI.MAHESH V RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE S.H.O.KASARAGOD POLICE STATION THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. SRI. M.S.BREEZ, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No.3180 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2009 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 6th accused in Crime No.209/2009 of Kasaragod Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 420 and 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The defacto complainant filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kasaragod, which was forwarded to the police under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for investigation. Accordingly a crime was registered. The case of the defacto complainant is that his friend Abdul Fayaz told him that Tokyo Charitable trust of which one Abdul Zameer was the chairman, was taking agents for collection for the purpose of the Trust. With the help of Fayaz, he met the Trust Chairman. The defacto complainant was appointed as a collection agent on a salary of Rs.2,000/- per month. The defacto complainant made collection from 235 customers. The promise B.A. No.3180/2009 2 was that on expiry of period, the customers would be given dining tables. On the expiry of the term, the defacto complainant found that the establishment was closed and the customers were not given the dining tables as promised. The case of the defacto complainant is that the collection amounts were being paid to Suhail Ahammed (Accused No.6), who is the petitioner in this bail application. 4. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the gravity of the offence and other circumstances, I do not think that this is a fit case where anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm