IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 5TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 16TH MAGHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 579 of 2010() -------------------------------- CRIME NO. 26/2010 OF NADAKKAVU POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT ................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3 : ---------------------------------- ARIF.K., S/O. IMBICHI AHAMMAD, KOTTIL HOUSE, URALLOOR, KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT : ----------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NADAKKAVU POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY SRI. V. TEKCHAND PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 579 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of February, 2010 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.3 in Crime No.26/2010 of Nadakkavu Police Station. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that the accused persons caused an advertisement in Mathrubhumi Daily inviting applications from interested persons offering them jobs in U.S.A and Australia. The advertisement was given in the name of the travel agency and showing the licence No. of the travel agency belonging to the de facto complainant. The de facto complainant reported the matter to the police. 4. Accused Nos.1 and 2 were arrested on 25.01.2010 and they were granted regular bail as per the order dated 05.02.2010 in Bail Application No.578/2010. The petitioner is not arrested so far. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, he is evading arrest. B.A. No. 579 of 2010 2 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence and the allegations levelled against the petitioner, I do not think that this is a fit case where anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. The petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE ln