IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 17TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 26TH KARTHIKA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 8691 of 2011 CRIME NO.253/CR/S1/09 OF CBCID, OCW-1, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PETITIONER: ACCUSED NO.1: -------------------- RAJEEV, 37 YEARS, S/O.VIJAYAN HOUSE NO.TC.14/502, NANDAVANAM, THYKKAD VILLAGE PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.J.POLLY RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.K.RAJEEV THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ Bail Appl. NO. 8691 OF 2011 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 17th day of November, 2011 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.1 in Crime No.253/CR/S1/09 of CBCID, OCW-1, Thiruvananthapuram. 2. The offences alleged against the accused are under Sections 489B and 489C read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is the following: On 10.6.2009, the petitioner and another person went to ICICI Bank at Kavadiyar and wanted to deposit Rupees Twenty thousand in an S.B.Account. The cashier was suspicious about the genuineness of ten currency notes of the denomination of `1,000/-. He reported the matter to the Manager of the bank. While the Manager was verifying the genuineness or otherwise of the currency notes, the accused persons went out of the bank stating that they had to make a telephone call. After going out of the bank, they drove away. Thereafter, they could not be found out. BAIL APPL. NO. 8691 OF 2011 :: 2 :: 4. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are very grave in nature. According to the prosecution, the petitioner was absconding from June 2009 onwards. The conduct of the petitioner in leaving the bank abruptly and his making himself scarce are very important factors to be taken note of. In a case of this nature, 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. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be required in the case. 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 ahz/