IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 13TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 22ND KARTHIKA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 6599 of 2009 CRIME NO.565 OF 2009 OF CHENGAMANAD POLICE STATION PETITIONER: FIRST ACCUSED: ------------------------------ SAJI MATHEW, S/O. MATHEW, AGED 41, THATTAMPARAMBIL (KELAMPARAMBIL) HOUSE, PALLIPURAM, CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. DR.V.N.SANKARJEE RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHENGAMANAD. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 6599 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 13th day of November, 2009 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.565 of 2009 of Chengamanad Police Station. 2. The de facto complainant filed Annexure A1 complaint before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class I, Aluva, which was forwarded to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, the crime was registered. 3. The offences alleged against the petitioner and the other accused are under Sections 420, 468 and 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The allegation against the petitioner and the other accused is that the accused persons received a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- promising visa to the de facto complainant to go to Australia. The B.A. NO. 6599 OF 2009 :: 2 :: amount was paid and a copy of the visa was also given to the de facto complainant. He was directed to go to Bombay. When he reached there, he was placed in a lodge. There were 25 other persons who were also to go to Australia. Later, it was revealed that there were some problems in the visa. It was revealed that the visa given to the de facto complainant was a forged and manipulated one. The prosecution alleges that several such persons were cheated by the accused persons. 5. The offences alleged against the petitioner are very serious in nature. In a case of this nature, anticipatory bail cannot be granted. The petitioner is not entitled to any discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case. The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/