IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2010 / 17TH ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3840 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.388/09 OF PEROORKADA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST. (S): APPLICANTS/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- 1. SANAL KUMAR, S/O.SASIDHARAN NAIR, MUTHIKAVIL, THOTTARIKATHU VEEDU, VINOBHA NIKETHAN, ARYANAD VILLAGE. 2. RAHUL, S/O.KUMARASWAMI PILLAI, RAHUL NIVAS, MARUTHUMMOODU, PANGODE. 3. SHEEJA, D/O.BEENA, KEEZHPALOOR HARIJAN COLONY, VINOBHA NIKETHAN P.O., ARYANAD VILLAGE. 4. RAGHU, S/O.KOCHUKUTTY, NANTHU BHAVAN, POYKKAKAM, MUKKUDI P.O., MARUTHUMMOODU, VENJARAMOODU. BY ADV. SRI.R.V.SREEJITH RESPONDENT(S): COUNTER PETITIONER --------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ---------------------------------------------- Bail Application No.3840 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 8th July, 2010. O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 143, 147, 149, 363, 323, 394, 342 and Section 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, defacto complainant's husband was abducted by petitioners and few others in a car and he was wrongfully confined and thereafter, Rs.72,000/-, a Rado watch and a gold chain worth 2 ½ sovereigns were taken away from his possession. He was also criminally intimidated and beaten up. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that on a representation made by defacto complainant's husband to petitioner that job will be arranged to him in Gulf country, petitioner was deceived to pay Rs.70,000/- to him. Job was not arranged and the amount was not returned, in spite of repeated demands. To get away from the responsibility to make the repayment, a false case is filed against petitioners, it is submitted. It is also submitted that no injury is sustained by defacto complainant's husband and all the allegations made are false. BA NO.3840/10 2 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the case diary itself reveals that defacto complainant owed Rs.70,000/- to first accused and that is shown as the cause for commission of the offence. It is also submitted that on investigation, it was revealed that no theft was involved in this case. The money, watch and chain are not taken away by petitioners. It is also submitted that offence under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code is deleted and hence, now only bailable offences are involved in this case. The submission of the learned Public Prosecutor is recorded. 5. On hearing both sides, I find that since only bailable offences are alleged against petitioner, anticipatory bail cannot be granted under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. tgs