IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 25TH JANUARY 2010 / 5TH MAGHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 318 of 2010(B) ------------------------------------- CRMP.59/2010 of DISTRICT COURT, KOTTAYAM CRIME NO.538/2009 OF KADUTHURUTHY POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM. .................... PETITIONER/3RD ACCUSED ------------------------------------------ MOLLY JOSEPH, W/O. LATE JOSEPH, KADAMNTHOTTU HOUSE, MANIMALA.P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO SMT.C.M.CHARISMA SRI.N.A.SHAFEEK SRI.M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN (OASIS) RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTING S.I. OF POLICE, KADUTHURUTHY, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTE BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. SRI. M.S. BREEZ, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. T. SANKARAN, J. ------------------------- B.A. No. 318 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of January, 2010 O R D E R This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the third accused in Crime No.538/2009 of Kaduthuruthy Police Station, Kottayam. 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 de facto complaint was made to believe by accused Nos. 1 and 2 that a job could be arranged in Australia for him and a sum of Rs.1.5 lakhs was collected from him. The 3rd accused, the petitioner herein, is the main person involved in the racket, in which, accused Nos.1 and 2 are also members. It is alleged that a total sum of Rs.47 lakhs was collected by them from 40 persons offering a job in Australia. None of them could go to Australia. Their money was not repaid also. The petitioner was arrested from Delhi. She was not at all available in her native place. According to the prosecution, the petitioner was absconding to avoid arrest. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that B.A. No. 318/2010 2 the petitioner was arrested on 21/12/2009 and she is in judicial custody since 24/12/2009. The petitioner is prepared to comply with any condition that may be imposed by the court. It is also submitted that the petitioner being a woman, she is entitled to get special protection as provided in the proviso to Section 437 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 5. The allegations levelled against the accused persons are very grave in nature. The prosecution case is that 40 persons were cheated by offering job abroad. Huge amounts were collected from them. In these circumstances, I do not think that the discretionary relief under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be granted to the petitioner. The investigation is in progress. The investigating officer has to conduct investigation in respect of several cases, in which the petitioner is one of the accused persons. If the petitioner is released on bail at this stage, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case. It is also likely, as rightly pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner may make herself scarce, if she is released on bail at this stage. B.A. No. 318/2010 3 6. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. Bail Application is accordingly dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm