IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2010 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 1528 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.552/2009 OF CHENGAMANADU POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER : 2ND ACCUSED ------------------------------ ANAND MATHEW, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.C.J.MATHEW, CHERUVALLIL HOUSE ELAMTHOTAM, VARIKKAL MUKKU, BHARANANGANAM,PALAI, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.MAJEED SRI.K.H.ASIF RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE CHENGAMANADU POLICE STATION, CHENGAMADU. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.1528 of 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of March, 2010 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.2 in Crime No.552 of 2009 of Chengamanadu Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 417 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that the accused persons took a sum of Rs.1.5 lakhs from the de facto complainant making him believe that an employment visa would be provided to him for working abroad. As directed by the accused, the de facto complainant went to Mumbai. However, the accused persons did not turn up and the de facto complainant had to return to his native place. The money was also not repaid to the de facto complainant. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not involved in the offence. He is only a power BA No. 1528/2010 2 of attorney holder of the first accused. 5. The petitioner had moved Crl.M.C.No.288 of 2010 for bail before the court of the Principal Sessions Judge, Ernakulam. That Bail Application was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge, after a careful consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the case, held that the petitioner is not entitled to get anticipatory bail. The allegation against the petitioner and the first accused is that they jointly received the amount from the de facto complainant on the assurance that he would be provided an employment abroad. The matter requires investigation. If the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case. I do not think that this is a fit case where anticipatory bail can be granted. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl