IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2009 / 30TH POUSHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 39 of 2009() --------------------------- (CRIME NO.519/2008 OF VIYYUR POLICE STATION, THRISSUR) PETITIONER/ ACCUSED; --------------------------- DEEPU, S/O. KOCHAPPAN, AGED 24 YEARS, OLARICHIPPILLY HOUSE, RAMAVARMAPURAM.P.O, ANAPPARA DESOM, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO SMT.C.M.CHARISMA SRI.N.A.SHAFEEK RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTING S.I OF POLICE, VIYYUR, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S. SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------------- Bail Appl. No. 39 of 2009 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of January, 2009. ORDER Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under section 420 of IPC. According to prosecution, petitioner was working as an employee under de facto complainant. He used to collect various amounts from various customers but he did not deposit the amount in the office and thereby misappropriated a huge sum of Rs.51,796/-. This happened in the year 2006 and, when petitioner was questioned about it, he admitted the same and agreed to pay the said amount to the employer in 2007, but no amount was paid so far and hence the complaint. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is absolutely innocent of the allegations made. He had not committed any offence as alleged and, though a claim was made that he had agreed to pay about Rs.51,000/-, the agreement is concocted and fabricated by the de facto complainant to grab more money from petitioner. To fabricate the agreement, blank paper which was handed over to employer at the time of getting [B.A.No.39/09] 2 the employment was misused. Therefore, petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that the allegations regarding fabrication of an agreement misusing a signed etc. are absolutely baseless. The stamp paper used for the agreement is seen purchased on 2.3.2007, much after date of appointment of petitioner. This is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides, considering the nature of the allegations made, I am satisfied that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer and co-operate with the investigation. Whether he surrenders or not petitioner is at liberty to arrest him and proceed in accordance with law. Petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Krs.