IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 5TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 16TH MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7634 of 2008(B) ------------------------------------------ (CRIME NO. 669/2008 OF KANNUR TOWN POLICE STATION) ........... PETITIONER/ 2ND ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------ T.K.MOHANAN, S/O.KUNHIRAMAN, AGED 45 YEARS THAZHEKOROTH HOUSE (PO).IRIVERI, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.P.U.SHAILAJAN. RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KANNUR TOWN POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. M.S. BREEZ. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/02/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. K. HEMA, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= B.A. No. 7634 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 5th day of February, 2009 O R D E R Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 420, 409,468,471 read with section 34 IPC. According to prosecution, de facto complainant took two insurance policies in the name of his children. When he was laid up, his wife surrendered the insurance policies before the Insurance Company and obtained a cheque in the name of the husband. The cheque was an account payee cheque and hence, she in furtherance of common intention with the petitioner, who is 3rd accused, opened an account in his name by introducing him as her husband. Name of de facto complainant is “D.K. Mohanan” whereas name of petitioner is “T.K. Mohanan”. The cheque issued to her husband was encashed through the account of the 3rd accused and thereafter, using the cheques issued by 3rd accused from his account amounts were withdrawn by 1st accused as well as 3rd accused and thereby committed various offences. The Manger of the bank is also made an accused, since in spite of difference in names in the initial, the cheque was encashed through the account of the 3rd accused. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that BA 7634/2008 -2- petitioner is absolutely innocent. De facto complainant's wife is an Insurance Agent. She approached the petitioner for joining insurance. He had given various papers, identity card, etc. including photograph to the de facto complainant's wife and using the same, the de facto complainant and his wife committed some foul play and petitioner is innocent. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed this petition and submitted that considering the nature of allegations made, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioner is required for investigation. The crime is registered as early as on 19-8-2008 and petitioner could not be questioned so far. 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that considering the serious nature of allegations made and the nature of investigation required, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioner is bound to surrender before the Investigating Officer and hence, the following order is passed:- 1) Petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer without any delay and co- operate with the investigation. Whether he surrenders or not, police is at liberty to arrest him and proceed in accordance with law. BA 7634/2008 -3- 2) No further application for anticipatory bail by petitioner in this crime will be entertained by this Court, since on the facts in this case, this Court is ordered that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail and any order passed to the contrary in any subsequent anticipatory bail application will amount to review, which is impermissible in law. With these directions, this petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. mn.