IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 20TH JULY 2010 / 29TH ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3267 of 2010() ----------------------------- CMP.NO.288/2010 OF JFCM III, THRISSUR MC.798/2010 of SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR .................... (CRIME NO.418/2010 OF OLLUC POLICE STATION) PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------ JIMMY, AGED 60, S/O. GEORGE, MALIYEKAL CHERUSSERY HOUSE, MARATHAKARA, THRISSUR. BY ADVS. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR), SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH). RESPONDENT(S): STATE OF KERALA/COMPLIAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. OLLUR POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, AT ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. V. TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K.HEMA, J. ------------------ B.A. No. 3267 of 2010 ----------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of July, 2010 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 406, 417 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioner(A2) along with first accused, in furtherance of their common intention, deceived de facto complainant by making false representation that job of electrical worker would be arranged for de facto complainant abroad and received an amount of Rs.1,10,000/- from him and thereafter, when he went abroad, no job, as promised, was given. He had to work in a auto mobile work shop and no salary was given. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that de facto complainant has case that he did not get any job. Petitioners had arranged a job for him and made all arrangements to sent him abroad. There is no element in cheating, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that as per the allegations made in the case diary, petitioner has committed various offences alleged against him. De B.A. No. 3267 / 2010 2 facto complainant had to undergo imprisonment in the jail abroad, since the employer did not provide him “akama”, which is necessary to continue the residence in saudi arabia. Accused did not return the money also, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides, considering the serious nature of the allegations made, I do not think that this is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioner has not made out any ground to invoke extra ordinary powers under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This petition is dismissed K. HEMA, JUDGE ln