IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2009 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 2409 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.297/Cr/SII/06 OF CBCID/SIG-2, KALOOR .................... PETITIONER (S): ACCUSED NO.4 -------------------------------- SUJESH JOY, AGED 28, S/O. JOY, CHALIL HOUSE, AMARAVATHY.P.O, KUMILY. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.UDAYABHANU RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CRIME BRANCH, (SIG-II), ERNAKULAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ---------------------------------- B.A.No.2409 of 2009 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of May, 2009 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.4 in Crime No.297/CR/SII/06 OF CBCID SIG-2, Kaloor. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under sections 120B, 420 and 468 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that the first accused gave a demand draft to the defacto complainant who submitted the draft for encashment and it was sent for collection. The defacto complainant was requested to issue a cheque for Rs.6 lakhs in favour of the first accused. He did so. The amount was realised by the first accused. Later, the demand draft was returned stating that there is no such account holder and that the draft is a forged one. 4. The petitioner moved bail application No.7327 of 2008 before this Court for anticipatory bail. As per the order dated BA No.2409/2009 2 16th January 2009, the application was dismissed. It was held thus: "On hearing both sides, considering the nature of the allegations made, I am satisfied that unless petitioner is interrogated by the police, it may not be possible to bring out all the relevant facts which are within his exclusive knowledge relating to the alleged forgery and encashing of cheques etc. Therefore, if anticipatory bail is granted, it will stand in the way of an effective investigation. I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail in an offence of this nature. The crime was registered as early as on 20.7.2006 and petitioner is not available for interrogation or investigation. Petitioner is directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer without any delay and co- operate with the investigation. Whether he surrenders or not, police is at liberty to arrest him and proceed in accordance with law. The petition is dismissed." 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner surrendered before the police and he was interrogated. However, he was not arrested. Now he apprehends arrest. 6. The learned public prosecutor submits that the signature and handwriting of the petitioner were sent to an expert for comparison with the handwriting and signature in the demand draft. The report is not received so far. It is submitted BA No.2409/2009 3 that there is no change of circumstances or any other ground warranting grant of anticipatory bail. It is also submitted by the learned public prosecutor that the order in Bail Application No.7327 of 2008 would be a bar in considering the application afresh on the same grounds. 7. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned public prosecutor. I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to get anticipatory bail. The fact that he surrendered before the police is not a ground for moving another application for anticipatory bail when this court had on the earlier occasion rejected the same on cogent grounds. Those grounds still exist and it cannot be said that there is change of circumstances. The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE csl