IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 26TH JUNE 2009 / 5TH ASHADHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 3422 of 2009() ------------------------------------- CRIME NO. NOT KNOWN OF MALA POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------- C.T.HAREESH KUMAR, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.S.THANKAPPAN (LATE) KUMAR BHAVAN, KERALA PURAM, PERUMPUZHA P.O., ELAMPALLOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BLAZE K.JOSE RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MALA POLICE STATION. SRI. M.S. BREEZE, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 3422 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 26th day of June, 2009 O R D E R The petitioner apprehends arrest by the Mala Police on an accusation of having committed non bailable offence. Therefore, the petitioner has filed this application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the brother of the defacto complainant and the petitioner are working in Saudi Arabia. The brother of the defacto complainant was running a chitty in Saudi Arabia. The petitioner prized the chitty and on account of the same, some amount is due to the brother of the defacto complainant. The further case of the petitioner is that he has come back to India. At that time, the defacto complainant has filed a petition before the police stating that the petitioner had taken money from Francis @ Fansean (defacto complainant) promising to arrange Visa and that the petitioner has cheated the defacto complainant. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the B.A. No. 3422/2009 Page numbers C.I of police, Mala Police Station has received a petition from one Johnson stating that the petitioner herein had received money from the said Johnson promising to arrange Visa for him and that the petitioner did not arrange the Visa and also did not return the money. The C.I of Police contacted the petitioner over phone and the petitioner agreed to repay the amount to Johnson by August, 2009. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no amount is due from the petitioner to Johnson. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there is no intention to arrest the petitioner on the allegations made by Johnson and that no crime is registered against the petitioner. The submission made by the Public Prosecutor is recorded and the Bail Application is closed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm