IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JANUARY 2008 / 3RD MAGHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 377 of 2008() ---------------------------- CRLMC.2198/2007 of D.C & SESSIONS COURT,TRIVANDRUM CRIME NO.765 OF 2007 OF NEDUMANGAD POLICE STATION .................... : PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------ VINOD, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O. SASIDHARAN NAIR, RAMYA BHAVAN, PUNAVELICONAM, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.GOWTHAM RESPONDENTS: ------------- SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NEDUMANGAD POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAI GEORGE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ B.A.No.377 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of January, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioner faces allegations under Section 420 I.P.C. The crux of the allegations against the petitioner is that he misled the defacto complainant to believe that he is a police constable and on that representation induced the defacto complainant to part with an amount of Rs.390/- which was expected to be remitted as fine in a petty case in which the petitioner and his 2 friends were involved. After having induced the defacto complainant, the petitioner did not remit the amount. The impersonation and misrepresentation were made only to induce the defacto complainant to part with money, it is alleged. 2. Crime has been registered. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent. The petitioner evidently had no culpable intention. If such intention were there, he would not have handed over the telephone number to the defacto complainant, urges the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in any view of the B.A.No.377 of 2008 2 matter, there is no worthwhile allegation of any cheating. Anticipatory bail may be granted and the petitioner may be saved of the trauma of arrest and detention, submits the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that all the available indications clearly point to a deliberate ploy to mislead and defraud the defacto complainant. The petitioner may be directed to surrender before the investigating officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the ordinary course. There are no circumstances justifying or warranting the invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C, submits the learned Public Prosecutor . 5. Having considered all the relevant inputs and having perused the case diary - F.I.R in particular, I am satisfied that there is merit in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. This, I agree with the learned Public Prosecutor, is a fit case where the petitioner must appear before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail. B.A.No.377 of 2008 3 6. This application is, in these circumstances, dismissed, but I may hasten to observe that if the petitioner surrenders before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate and applies for bail after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate must proceed to pass appropriate orders on merits and expeditiously. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-