IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 28TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 7TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6948 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO. 728/2007 OF CHENGAMANAD POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- SAJI PADMANABHAN, AGED 31 YEARS, THEVALLI HOUSE, PUTHUVASSERY, CHENGAMANAD BY ADV. SRI.E.C.POULOSE SMT.BOBBY RAPHEAL.C RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHENGAMANAD POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A. No. 6948 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28th day of November,2008 O R D E R Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 406, 420 and 34 IPC. According to prosecution, petitioner obtained huge amount from one Suryakumar and Joseph for arranging visa. An amount of R.30,000/- each was collected from 19 persons and those were handed over to 1st accused on 26-10-2008. There were several other transactions also. But, the amounts were not returned and no visa was arranged. Therefore, a complaint was filed by de facto complainant who introduced the accused to said Suryakumar and Joseph. According to de facto complainant, 1st accused made fraudulent representation to him that he has 300 visa with him and that 1st accused can arrange visa, if Rs.30,000/- each is advanced by persons. Persuaded by such representation, he introduced 1st accused to two persons. On a complaint filed by de facto complainant, a crime was registered under the said sections. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that as per Annexure-A3, claim of Joseph has been settled and he has no BA 6948/08 -2- grievance or claim against petitioner now. It is also submitted that there was a case filed under section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act against 1st accused and the Cheques in the name of various persons were returned and those cheques covered an amount of Rs.4.5 lakhs collected from several persons. Learned counsel appearing for Mr. Joseph conceded that dispute between Joseph and accused is settled and he has no grievance against accused. This submission is recorded. Learned counsel for petitioner also submitted that petitioner is prepared to abide by any condition. Petitioner could not pay the money only because of financial stringency and in the peculiar circumstances, anticipatory bail may be granted, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there is no information to the police regarding any settlement. As per the complaint, it is not one Joseph alone who is involved, but there are various other persons who are aggrieved. Therefore, on the basis of an alleged settlement between Joseph and petitioner alone, it may not be proper to grant anticipatory bail, in an offence of this nature, it is pointed out. It was also pointed out that earlier application for anticipatory bail was dismissed as per order dated 14-11-2007 in B.A. no.6846/2007. BA 6948/08 -3- 5. On hearing both sides and on going through the document, particularly Anneuxure-A2, the compromise, I do not think that it is proper for this Court to act upon Annexure-A2. However, in the light of the submission made by learned counsel appearing for Sri Joseph it can be inferred that the grievance of Sri. Joseph has been redressed as settled, between 1st accused and Mr. Joseph. But grievance of all the persons involved are not redressed. In the nature of the allegations made, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the charge sheet was laid before the Magistrate Court showing petitioner as an absconding accused. Therefore, warrant would have been issued against him and he is required for execution of warrant. In such circumstances, I find that it will not be proper to grant anticipatory bail. However, I make it clear that if petitioner may raise all the contentions before the trial court and the Magistrate may consider the same and pass appropriate orders on merit if petitioner surrenders and files application for bail. I make it clear that consideration of granting anticipatory bail is different from consideration of granting of bail under section 437 Cr.P.C. and I also make it clear that dismissal of anticipatory bail application BA 6948/08 -4- by itself would not be a ground for dismissal of application under section 437 Cr.P.C. Petitioner is directed to surrender before the Magistrate court forthwith . Whether he surrenders or not, police is at liberty to arrest him and proceed in accordance with law. With this direction, this petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. mn.