IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 1ST JANUARY 2009 / 11TH POUSHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7960 of 2008() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO.708/2008 OF KANNUR POLICE STATION) PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ------------------------------ T.PANKAJAKSHAN, S/O. IMBICHIKUTTAN, PHINIX, THAYIKOOTTATHIL HOUSE, KADALUNDI AMSOM, KADALUDI, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.V.S.AFSAL KHAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- 1. THE STIATION HOUSE OFFICE, KANNUR TOWN POLICE STATION. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S. BREEZ. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------------- Bail Appl.No. 7960 of 2008 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of January, 2009. ORDER Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. According to prosecution, petitioner is the Manager of a Bank. He along with three other bank officials sanctioned an amount of Rs.1,29,50,000/- to accused nos. 6 and 11 to 28 against the property covering an extent of 6.484 acres of land. The property did not fetch any value being a hill, without any road access. But, after sanctioning the loan and disbursing the same, the said amount was deposited in the account of a company, which is run by accused nos.5 to 8. They also committed forgery and used forged documents as genuine and thereby committed offences under Sections 120B, 406, 409, 420, 465, 366, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of IPC. It is also alleged that accused nos.1 to 4 received an amount of Rs.10 lakhs as bribe. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner may be allowed to withdraw this petition. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioner filed an application for anticipatory bail earlier and it was dismissed. 5. On hearing both sides and on considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that there is no reason to allow petitioner to withdraw the petition for anticipatory bail. I have already considered the facts and circumstances and found that the allegations are serious in nature and considering the [B.A.No.7960/08] 2 nature of investigation required, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. I had also observed in the earlier order passed by me on 4.12.2008 in B.A.No.7379 of 2008 that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail and that petitioner would be required for interrogation by police to ascertain the materials which are within his exclusive knowledge. 6. Petitioner was directed to surrender before the investigating officer within 10th December, 2008 and co-operate with the investigation. Petitioner has not chosen to do so. Petitioner filed an application for anticipatory bail again. I am not inclined to grant the relief to a person who has not chosen to comply with the direction of this Court. The police is at liberty to arrest him and proceed in accordance with law. 7. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that co- accused were granted bail. Learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that co-accused were granted regular bail. I am satisfied that granting of regular bail is not a ground by itself to grant anticipatory bail. 8. I make it clear that no further petition for anticipatory bail by this petitioner will be entertained by this Court hereafter. Petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Krs.