IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2009 / 26TH SRAVANA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 3948 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.90 OF 2009 OF KANNUR TOWN POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED --------------------------------------- 1. KIZHAKKE VEETTIL ABDUL AZEEZ, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O. EBRAHIM, KOYYODE, KADACHIRA, KANNUR. 2. KIZHAKKE VEETTIL ARIF, S/O. EBRAHIM, KOYYODE,P.O. KADACHIRA, KANNUR BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER SMT.K.A.SANJEETHA SRI.ANEESH JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT ----------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI - 31. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.RAVEENDRA BABU THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.3948 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of August, 2009 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.90 of 2009 of Kannur Town Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 420, 468 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. 3. I have perused the case diary. 4. The crux of the allegation is that the de facto complainant and the first accused entered into an agreement for export of goods manufactured by the de facto complainant. Goods worth Rs.16,13,600/- were exported. 50% of the amount was paid. The balance was not paid. It is alleged that the accused persons created false documents showing that the goods were destroyed by the Municipality in Gulf country and on that ground refused to pay the amount. The de facto complainant states that it is a Co-operative Society which is the subsidiary BA No.3948/2009 2 of Kerala Dinesh Beedy Workers Central Co-operative Society Ltd. On a perusal of the case diary as well as the documents produced along with the case diary and the materials available therein, I do not think that this is a case where the discretionary relief under Section 438 can be granted in favour of the petitioners. The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl