IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 9612 of 2011() ----------------------------- Crime No.3179 of 2011 of Ernakulam Central Police Station. PETITIONER/IST ACCUSED ------------------------------------------ MUHAMMED RAFI,S/O.NOOR MUHAMMED, BATHEL BERKA HOUSE.(HOUSE NO.16/432), PUTHOOR ROAD,KOPPAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.ABHILASH SRI. K.SIJU RESPONDENT(S): STATE -------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM CENTRAL POLICE STATION, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM. BY P.P.SRI.K.I.ABDUL RASHEED THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/11/2011, ALONG WITH BA NO. 9613 OF 2011 & CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------------- B.A.No. 9612, 9613, 9614 & 9615 OF 2011 ------------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 24th day of November, 2011 ORDER These are the applications for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Petitioner is the 1st accused in Crime No.3179 of 2011, 2nd accused in Crime No.2207 of 2011, 1st accused in Crime No.2940 of 2011 and 1st accused in Crime No.3639 of 2011 of Ernakulam Central Police Station. 2.The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 406 and 420 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3.The prosecution case is that without any valid licence or permit, the petitioner was running Al-Fahad Tours & Travels at Cochin. He made advertisements in newspaper that several vacancies existed in different trades in various countries in the middle-east and also in Afghanistan. B.A.Nos. 9612, 9613, 9614 & 9615 OF 2011 OF 2011 2 Promising job abroad, the accused collected huge amounts from several persons. It is alleged that many of the persons who went abroad could not continue there, and they were deported to India immediately. 4. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to get the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The matter requires investigation. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, it would adversely affect the proper and smooth investigation of the case. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE cms