IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2009 / 13TH MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7238 of 2008 ------------------------------------- (CRIME NO. 85/CR/S-III/07 OF CBCID SIC III, KOZHIKODE) ........ PETITIONER/ ACCUSED NO.2: ------------------------------------------- K.K.SHAJAHAN AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED HAJI, ATHANIKKAL HOUSE, KAVUNGAL MELPARAMBA CHIRAYIL P.O., NEDIYIRIPPU, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.T.K.SAIDALIKUTTY. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE DETECTIVE INSPECTOR CBCID SIG-III, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE STATE REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. M.Z. BREEZ. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/02/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. K. HEMA, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= B.A. No. 7238 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2009 O R D E R Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 489B and C IPC. According to prosecution, 1st accused remitted an amount of Rs.8,500 in Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kozhikode towards fine amount to be deposited in a case under section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act. This was on 4-1-2007. Out of the said amount, five fake currency notes of denomination 500/- were detected. The 1st accused was arrested on a complaint and on investigation, it is revealed that the amount was obtained by 1st accused from 2nd accused by pledging gold ornaments. The 2nd accused is running a jewellery shop by name Syndicate Jewellery wherein 1st accused pledged gold ornaments and obtained Rs.9,211/- and out of this amount, he deposited Rs.8,500/- in the court. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is absolutely innocent. Petitioner is the 2nd accused. Even as per the prosecution case, though the amount was BA 7238/08 -2- allegedly received from the 2nd accused on pledging, the whole amount was not deposited in the court. But the said amount was given to the driver by the 1st accused, then to the counsel and then only to the court. The money has thus reached several hands and petitioner is innocent, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioner's involvement is clearly revealed by investigation. Earlier also, some fake notes were detected in the amount, which was given from petitioner's jewellery shop to ne Ashiq. In this case also, when fake notes were detected and 1st accused informed 2nd accused, he readily and immediately handed over Rs.2,000/- to the 1st accused. 5. On hearing both sides, considering the serious nature of allegations made, I do not find it fit to grant anticipatory bail to petitioner. The crime is detected as early as on 4-1-2007 and petitioner is not available for investigation. Hence, the following order is passed:- 1) Petitioner is directed to surrender before the Magistrate court concerned or before the Investigating Officer without any delay and co- operate with the investigation. Whether he BA 7238/08 -3- surrenders or not, police is at liberty to arrest him and proceed in accordance with law. 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 satisfied that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail and any finding to the contrary will amount to review, which is impermissible in law. This petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. mn.