IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2009 / 18TH POUSHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7845 of 2008 -------------------------------------- ( CP.NO.142/2008 OF ADDL.C.J.M COURT., ERNAKULAM ) .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------- ASHRAF.U.E., AGED.43 YEARS, S/O.EBRAHIM, UTHINATT, KAVUMKARA .P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.ABOOBACKER. RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------- THE C.B.C.I.D., ERNAKULAM, KALOOR, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K.S. SIVAKUMAR. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/01/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No.7845 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th January, 2009 O R D E R This petition is for bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 489B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, accused 4 and 5 were arrested while they were in possession of counterfeit currency notes and on investigation it is revealed that accused 1 to 3 are also involved in the crime. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is innocent. Some of the co-accused were acquitted in this case and petitioner was not absconding as alleged, it is submitted. He was working abroad and hence, he could not appear before the court. He is prepared to abide by any condition, it is submitted. 4. This petition is strongly opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioner was absconding. The crime was of the year 2001. First accused was convicted in this case and other accused were acquitted. If the petitioner is released on bail, it is likely that he will not available for trial. BA.7845/08 2 5. On hearing both sides, I find that petitioner may not be available for trial, if he is released on bail. Therefore, I do not find it fit to grant bail to petitioner. 6. However, taking into consideration the fact that the crime is of the year 2001, the concerned court shall dispose of the case without any delay. In case there is any delay, petitioner is at liberty to move the court concerned for bail again, in which event, depending upon the stage of the case and the facts and circumstances, petition shall be disposed of on merit, in accordance with law. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.