IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 12TH JULY 2010 / 21ST ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3876 of 2010() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO. 395/2010 OF THOPPUMPADI POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DIST.) PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- SUDHEENDRAN, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.SIVARAMAN NAIR, THAIKKAVIL HOUSE, THURAVOOR HOUSE, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (CRIME NO.395/2010 OF THOPPUMPADI POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT). BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. M.S. BREEZ. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------------- B.A. No. 3876 of 2010 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this 12th day of July, 2010. ORDER Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC. According to prosecution, accused nos. 1 to 3 purchased 7000 kgs. of fish from de facto complainant for Rs.4,46,880/- and deceived de facto complainant by making false representations and thereafter by not paying the amount, with intention to cause wrongful gain to the accused and wrongful loss to de facto complainant 3. Petitioner is the 3rd accused. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner was working as Supervisor in the first accused's firm. He had nothing to do with the transaction alleged in the complaint. There was some dispute between first accused and the de facto complainant in respect of purchase of fish and payment of money. Petitioner appeared before the Investigating Officer and explained his innocence in the matter, pursuant to a direction issued by this Court. [B.A.No.3876/2010] 2 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioner appeared before the Investigating Officer on 3.7.2010, as per direction of this Court, but charge was already laid before the trial court prior to that date, as early as on 31.1.2010. Petitioner may be directed to approach appropriate court for regular bail, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides, I find that there is only bare assertion of innocence. Since charge is already laid, petitioner may approach the trial court for regular bail. I do not think, this is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Krs.