IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 19TH JULY 2010 / 28TH ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 4003 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.159/2010 OF MALA POLICE STATION, THRISSUR. (S): APPLICANT/ACCUSED NO.2 ------------------------------------------ VARDHANAN.P.R, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.RAJAN.P.K, PULIKKAL HOUSE, POST KANNIKULANGARA PUTHENCHIRA VILLAGE,MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING THE S.I. OF POLICE, MALA POLICE STATION. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEK CHAND. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ---------------------------------------------- Bail Application No.4003 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 19th July, 2010. O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioner obtained deposits to the tune of Rs.30,000/- from the defacto complainant in the year 2004. From the defacto complainant's wife, Rs.25,000/- and Rs.40,000/- were also received as deposits, in 2007. This was done, pursuant to false representation made by petitioner that the deposits will be given back with huge interest. No amounts were returned to the defacto complainant or his wife. Petitioner is the Managing Director and his brother is the Chairman of the chitty company. They are accused nos.2 and 1 respectively. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that defacto complainant is an employee of petitioner. He had given some money to petitioner, but it was not claimed within the period of limitation and hence, it has become time-barred. Several other depositors had moved the court for liquidation of BA NO.4003/10 2 the company. The defacto complainant alone has given a criminal complaint. The amount could not be paid only because of financial stringency since the company went on loss. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that as per the allegations in the complaint, huge amounts were received from the defacto complainant and his wife on different dates and the money was not returned. The materials in the case diary will reveal elements of cheating. It is also submitted that during investigation, another person has come forward, raising a grievance that Rs.2,29,000/- were received from him by petitioner and another and it was also not returned. It was also pointed out that there is nothing on record to show that defacto complainant is an employee of petitioner. 5. On hearing both sides and on considering the relevant aspects, I do not think that this is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioner has not made out any ground to get anticipatory bail. Petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer and co-operate with the investigation. No further application for anticipatory bail by petitioner in this crime will be entertained by this BA NO.4003/10 3 court hereafter. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. tgs