IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 2ND AUGUST 2011 / 11TH SRAVANA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 6080 of 2011() ----------------------------- Crime No.654 of 2011 of Chengannur Police Station, Alappuzha District PETITIONER : ACCUSED ------------------------------ PRASANTH, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.RAJENDRAN G.K, POURNAMI, KALLIMEL P.O.,MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN RESPONDENT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, REPRESENTING THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHENGANNUR POLICE STAION ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.MANU THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Bail Appln.No.6080 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 02nd day of August, 2011 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Petitioner is accused No.2 in Crime No.654 of 2011 of Chengannur Police Station, Alappuzha District. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Gist of the prosecution case is the following:- Accused No.1 pledged spurious gold ornaments in Manappuram Gold Finance and took a loan of `5,03,500/-. At that time the petitioner was the Assistant Head of the Branch of the Manappuram Gold Finance. According to the petitioner, he was the Branch Manager. It was found out on inspection that the ornaments pledged are not real gold ornaments and that they are imitation gold ornaments. The first accused repaid only `1,10,370/- . The de facto complainant is the Area Manager of Manappuram Gold Finance. Only accused No.1 was implicated in the F.I.R. Investigation revealed that it Bail Appln.No.6080/2011 : 2 : was at the instance of accused No.2 that accused No.1 pledged spurious gold ornaments and took the money. The complicity of accused No.2 is prima facie disclosed during investigation. 4. In a case of this nature, I do not think the discretionary jurisdiction under Section 438 Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised in favour of the petitioner. Serious allegations are levelled against the petitioner. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, it would affect the proper and smooth investigation of the case. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be required. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE skj