IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 23RD AUGUST 2011 / 1ST BHADRA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 6545 of 2011() ----------------------------- (CR.NO.653/2011 OF KATTAPPANA POLICE STATION, IDUKKI DT.) PETITIONER/ACCUSED: --------------------------- SUBASH KRISHNA, S/O.KRISHNANKUTTY, AGED 30 YEARS, SUVARNALIP, ANCHAPPRAYIL HOUSE, KATTAPPANA.P.O, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS J.ANAKKALLUNKAL SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KATTAPPANA POLICE STATION, IDUKKI DISTRICT, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY P.P.SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER SOUGHT PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW THE BAIL APPLICATION. ACCORDINGLY, THE BAIL APPLICATION IS DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN. 23.8.2011 SD/-K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------- B.A.No.6545 OF 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of August, 2011 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Petitioner is the sole accused in Cr. No.653 of 2011 of Kattappana Police Station, Idukki District. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is the following: The accused represented to the defacto complainant that he is the agent of a Company called Unipay 2U, a Malaysian based Company, and that the Company is engaged in gold mining in Malaysia. It was represented to the defacto complainant that if he deposited `50,000/- he would get `9,000/- each for a period of ten months. The defacto complainant deposited `53,500/-. It is contended B.A.No.6545 OF 2011 2 that later, he paid `1,50,000/- to the accused as deposit to the Company. Later, it was turned that there is no such Company nor any such scheme. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner and some others were really cheated by the Company. The petitioner and others filed a complaint dated 6.7.2011 before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kattappana and Crime No.541 of 2011 was registered at Kattappana Police Station for the offences under Sections 120B, 468, 471, 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The counsel submitted that the very fact that the petitioner and others reported the matter to the police would indicate that they were acting bonafide, and that they were really cheated by the Company and its Managing Director. 5. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is grave in nature. The question is whether a false representation was made to the defacto complainant and based on that false representation he part with the money. The defacto complainant need not worry about the transaction between the petitioner and B.A.No.6545 OF 2011 3 the Company. The matter requires investigation. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be required in the case. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, it would adversely affect the proper and smooth investigation of the case. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to get the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE. cms