IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 28TH MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 289 of 2009(E) ------------------------------------ CRIME NO.473/2007 OF KOIPURAM POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED : ----------------------------- K.R.VENUGOPAL, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.M.R.RAGHAVAN PILLAI, KRISHNACHETHU, THOTTAPUZHASSERY, MARAMON P.O. TIRUVALLA TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI. K.SHAJ SRI.SAJJU.S RESPONDENT/STATE : -------------------------- STAE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. -------------------------------- B.A. No.289 OF 2009 -------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of February, 2009 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under Section 420 I.P.C. According to prosecution, during 2001 to 2006, an amount of Rs.9Lakhs were received from the defacto complainant promising that interest at the rate between 18% and 21% will be paid on the amount. Neither the amount nor the interest was paid and hence, the complaint. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner has not committed any offence. He is a money lender by profession and due to financial stringency, he could not repay the amount in full. No offence under Section 420 I.P.C. is made out on the allegations made. It is also submitted that petitioner has a settlement with the defacto complainant and Rs.1,50,000/- was returned. Petitioner is prepared to raise the amount and pay the entire money due. Therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted, it is submitted. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that Rs.1.5 Lakhs B.A.No.289 of 2009 2 are already paid and there was an agreement to pay the balance. But petitioner has not complied with the terms of agreement. Therefore, this petition is opposed. On hearing both sides, considering the serious nature of the allegations made, I do not think that it is fit to grant anticipatory bail to petitioner. However, petitioner is at liberty to surrender before the Magistrate court concerned and seek bail under Section 437 Cr.P.C. It is made clear that the consideration for grant of bail under Section 437 Cr.P.C. are different from consideration for granting anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The rejection of anticipatory bail may not be a ground to refuse bail under Section 437 Cr.P.C. Learned Magistrate will consider the various facts and dispose of the bail application if any filed, untrammelled by any of the observations if any made, on merit in this case. Petitioner is bound to surrender to law. Hence, the following order is passed :- i) Petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer or before the Magistrate court concerned without any delay and B.A.No.289 of 2009 3 co-operate with the investigation. Whether he surrenders or not, police is at liberty to arrest him and proceed in accordance with law. ii) No further application for anticipatory bail by petitioner in this crime will be entertained by this court. The petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE pac