IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 24TH KARTHIKA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 8692 of 2011 CRIME NO.988 OF 2011 OF ADIMALY POLICE STATION, IDUKKI DISTRICT PETITIONER: ACCUSED NO.1: -------------------- PONNUSWAMY, S/O.PERIYASWAMY, PADINJAREKKARA HOUSE, KADATHI KARA MOOVATTUPUZHA VILLAGE, MOOVATTUPUZHA THALUK (7TH ACCUSED IN THE FIR AND IST ACCUSED IN THE REMAND APPLICATION A2 TO 7) BY ADV. SRI.SAJITH KUMAR V. SMT.PRIYANKA PRASAD RESPONDENT: STATE: --------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.REMA THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ Bail Appl. NO. 8692 OF 2011 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 15th day of November, 2011 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.1 in Crime No.988 of 2011 of Adimaly Police Station, Idukki District. 2. The offence alleged against the accused is under Section 17 of the Kerala Money Lenders Act. 3. The prosecution case is that without any license to conduct money lending business at Adimaly, accused No.1, with the assistance of accused Nos.2 to 7, conducted money lending business at Adimaly. On 26.9.2011, the police searched the house where the activities were allegedly going on. Several documents and records were seized from the possession of accused Nos.2 to 7, which included blank promissory notes, collection cards, account books etc. The search was conducted on the basis of the grievance voiced by several persons of Adimaly that without any license, the BAIL APPL. NO.8692 OF 2011 :: 2 :: accused persons were conducting money lending business in and around Adimaly. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that accused Nos.2 to 7 were arrested and they were granted bail. The petitioner apprehends that if he is arrested, he would be harassed and humiliated by the police and he would be remanded to judicial custody. 4. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature. In a case of this nature, I do not think that the petitioner can aspire for the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 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. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/