IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 21ST MAY 2010 / 31ST VAISAKHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 2147 of 2010() ----------------------------- (CRIME No.307/2009 OF TALIPARAMBA POLICE STATION) PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- K.R.RAJEEVAN, S/O. RAMAN, AGED 43 YEARS, VADAKKANCHERY, KURUMATHOOR AMSOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK,. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW KURIAKOSE RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, (CRIME NO.307/2009 OF TALIPARAMBA POLICE STATION) REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEK CHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J ---------------------- B.A.No.2147 OF 2010 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of May, 2010 O R D E R This is a petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under section 420 IPC. According to prosecution, defacto complainant is cheated by the petitioner by drawing Rs.2,500/- from the ATM counter using defacto complainant's ATM card, making false representation to him. Defacto complainant is an old man and he wanted the help of petitioner, to withdraw money from ATM center. Rs.3,000/- was withdrawn at the request of defacto complainant. But, without knowledge of defacto complainant Rs.2,500/- was also drawn by petitioner on the pretext that he was showing as to how to operate ATM counter. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is an ex-service man. He is innocent of the allegations made. Petitioners image is available in the camera. Investigation is almost over and petitioner is not required for the purpose of investigation. B.A. No.2147/10 2 4. Learned public prosecutor opposed this bail application and submitted that the amount allegedly taken by the petitioner is not recovered so far. There is evidence to show that petitioner is involved in the offence and hence it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that considering the nature of the allegations and the investigation to be made, it is not a fit case to exercise discretion u/s.438 of Cr.P.C. to grant anticipatory bail. 6.Hence the following order is passed: i) Petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer and co-operate with investigation. ii) Whether he surrenders or not police is at liberty to arrest the petitioner. This petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Sou.