IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH DECEMBER 2009 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 6147 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.518/2009 OF CANTONMENT POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PETITIONER (S): -------------------- MIDHUN, S/O.DEVADAS, AGED 24 YEARS, PRASANNALAYAM, MEENMUTTY P.O., TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.V.K.SUNIL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (THE SI OF POLICE, CANTONMENT POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM). PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND SMT.SREEDEVI KYLASANATH SRI.S.KRISHNAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.6147 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of December, 2009 ORDER The petitioner has filed this application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure apprehending arrest in Crime No.518 of 2009 of Cantonment Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 420 and 408 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. When the Bail Application came up for hearing on 4th December, 2009 the following order was passed: “The de facto complainant is represented by the counsel. It is submitted by the counsel that the petitioner is absconding and that he intends to go abroad to avoid the arrest and to avoid the appearance before the court. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has not received any instructions from his client for the last two weeks. Hence, the interim direction is hereby vacated. The learned counsel for the petitioner shall get instructions from the petitioner and disclose as to whether the petitioner is available BA No.6147/2009 2 in the State and if so, where.” 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has not received any instructions from the petitioner and the petitioner is out of circulation. 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the petitioner is not 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 csl