IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 17TH OCTOBER 2008 / 25TH ASWINA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6316 of 2008(B) ------------------------------------- CRMP.2910/2008 of SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD CRIME NO.143/2008 OF TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED : ---------------------------- SHAMSUDHEEN, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.IBRAHIMKUTTY, DOOR NO.36, DURGA NAGAR, 2ND STREET, KUNNATHURMEDU POST, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.JALEEL RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT : ------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA (REP.BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD-CR.143/08 OF TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD)REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------ B.A. No.6316 OF 2008 ------------------------------ Dated this the 17th day of October, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under Section 420 of I.P.C. According to prosecution, Rs.81,000/- was collected from 5 persons, promising job as Manager and field workers in the establishment run by the petitioner. They were appointed but no salary was given. When salary was demanded, the establishment was closed down and thereby they were cheated. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no allegation of cheating is involved in this case. The petitioner's business was running at a loss because of the inefficiency of the employees and because of this he could not pay the salary. But, there is no intention to cheat the defacto complainant. It is also submitted that the defacto complainant had caused destruction in the petitioner's business premises and a complaint was lodged against the defacto complainant and another. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor B.A.6316 of 2008 2 submitted that this is a case where huge amount was received, with an intention to cheat and the business establishment was closed down without even paying salary or return the amount collected. It is not fit to grant anticipatory bail in an offence of this nature, it is submitted. On hearing both sides, considering the nature of allegations made, I do not think it fit to grant anticipatory bail. The crime is registered as early as on 28.03.2008 and the petitioner was not available for arrest for the past seven months. Hence the petitioner was evading arrest. Hence the petitioner is directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer within seven days from today and co-operate with the investigation. With this direction, the petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE pac