IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2009 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 6951 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.1217/2009 OF ERNAKULAM TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER (S): 2ND ACCUSED ------------------------------- MUHAMMED KAMAL @ KAMALUDHEEN, S/O. MUHAMMED HANEEFA, AGED 41 YEARS, PALLIVILAPUTHEN VEEDU, VELAVOOR, PIRAPPANCODU.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN SMT.RESHMI G. NAIR RESPONDENT(S): STATE AND COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.6951 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of December, 2009 ORDER 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.1217 of 2009 of Ernakulam Town North Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 10 and 24 of the Emigration Act. 3. The gist of prosecution case is the following: The petitioner and the first accused were running a concern under the name and style 'Nouva Shipyard Pvt. Ltd.' at Ernakulam. They offered employment in Russia and collected Rs.2.5 lakhs each from the brother-in-law of the de facto complainant and the former's brother. Later, those two persons were sent to Russia along with others. However, they could not secure any job there or stay in Russia as their entry itself was illegal. They could not go out and they could not seek any job there. Several similarly situated persons were also trapped in Russia. Ultimately, with BA No.6951/2009 2 the intervention of the Indian Embassy and a certain well wishers, the persons who were cheated could come back to India. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has disassociated with 'Nouva Shipyard Pvt. Ltd.' and that he has no interest in that concern. Annexure I agreement dated 1.11.2008 allegedly executed by the petitioner and one Ramesh Kiran (accused No.1) is relied on. 5. I have perused the agreement. The agreement does not disclose that it relates to 'Nouva Shipyard Pvt. Ltd.' Secondly, the agreement refers to sale of computer and other articles and not the concern itself. The specific case of the de facto complainant is that the petitioner is also involved in the offence. The allegations levelled against the petitioner and the other accused are grave in nature. 6. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence and the allegations levelled against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the petitioner. If anticipatory bail is granted to the BA No.6951/2009 3 petitioner, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl