IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 21ST MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7874 of 2008() ----------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN BA.7134/2008 Dated 21/11/2008 .................... (CRIME NO.1026/2008 OF KADAVANTHRA POLICE STATION) PETITIONER: --------------------- U.K.MOHAMMED ALI, S/O.KUTTY HASSAN, UMMAL KUNNUMMAL HOUSE, POST UNNIKULAM, BALUSSERY, CALICUT DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. C.M.KAMMAPPU THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K. HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------------- Bail Appl. No. 7874 of 2008 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of February, 2009. ORDER Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC. According to prosecution, petitioner has taken two telephone connections form B.S.N.L. under Super Mega Plan. He made several calls and thereby a huge amount of more than Rs.44 lakhs is due to B.S.N.L. But, petitioner closed down his institution and he absconded without paying the amount. Several notices were issued to petitioner, but he had not turned up to make the payment. Chief Accounts Officer of the B.S.N.L. filed the complaint. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that a Writ Petition was filed by petitioner against revenue recovery and in that matter the B.S.N.L. entered appearance and admitted that the amount due is only Rs. 35 lakhs and not Rs. 44 lakhs, as alleged in the compliant. The B.S.N.L. had agreed that amount can be deposited in instalments. Therefore, there is a settlement and petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted. [B.A.No.7874/08] 2 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the crime was registered as early as on 8.10.2008 and the earlier application filed by petitioner was dismissed as per order dated 21.11.2008 in B.A.No.7134 of 2008 and all the contentions were considered by this Court in detail in the said order. Petitioner was directed to surrender before the investigating officer without delay and co-operate with the investigation. Petitioner has not surrendered so far even after dismissal of the order. Hence, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides and on going through Annexure-I order, considering the nature of the allegations made, I already found that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. I have also come to a finding that interrogation of petitioner is required in this case and a direction was also given to surrender before the investigating officer. Petitioner has not complied with the order, but again filed a petition for anticipatory bail. If anticipatory bail is granted, I am satisfied that this will amount to review of the order, which is barred by Section 362 of Cr.P.C. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there is no settlement between the parties as per the instructions to him. In the above circumstances, the following order is passed: [B.A.No.7874/08] 3 1) Petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer forthwith and co-operate with the investigation. Whether he surrenders or not, police is at liberty to arrest him and proceed in accordance with law. 2) No further application for anticipatory bail by the petitioner in this crime will be entertained by this Court. Petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Krs.