IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 15TH MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7523 of 2008() --------------------------------------- CRIME NO.661/2008 OF MATTANNUR POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER (S): ACCUSED -------------------- A.RAJESH, S/O. NARAYANAN, AGED 34 YEARS, RADHIKA NIVAS, KOODALI, KANNUR. BY ADV. MR.P.M.PAREETH RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT:- -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MATTANNUR POLICE STATION, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVINGCOME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 7523 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th February, 2009 O R D E R This petition is for bail. 2. The alleged offence is under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioner received Rs.2.60 lakhs from de facto complainant promissing to give employment on a salary of Rs.40,000/- abroad, and though de facto complainant went abroad, he was not given the employment as promised, and he had to come back to India. The money was not repaid and hence, the complaint. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that de facto complainant was employed in Kuwait, but he was doing some other work, which was not permitted by the employer and hence, he was sent out of job. On the same set of facts, another complaint was filed and a crime was registered as Crime no.644/08 and petitioner was remanded in custody and hence, petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioner received Rs.2.60 lakhs from de facto complainant and another Rs.2.60 lakhs from de facto complainant's friend and both of them were cheated. Crime no.644/08 relates to a complaint made by de facto complainant's friend and both cases relate to different BA.7523/08 2 transaction. The job, which was promised was not given and it came to a situation where de facto complainant had a threat of arrest by the police abroad and he somehow managed to come back to India. It is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that considering the serious nature of allegations made, this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioner is required for investigation. The crime is registered as early as on 12.11.2008. Hence, the following order is passed: Petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer and co-operate with the investigation. Whether he surrenders or not, police is at liberty to arrest him and proceed in accordance with law. With this direction, petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.