IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2008 / 24TH POUSHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 152 of 2008() ---------------------------- CRIME NO. 516/07 OF WADANAPPILLY POLICE STATION PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED --------------------------------------- SUNILKUMAR P., S/O.RAVUNNI, AGED 29 YEARS, PARAPURATH HOUSE, P.O.PATTITHARA, THRITHALA VIA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-679 534, NOW WORKING AT CROFORD MARKET, BOMBAY. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO SMT.C.M.CHARISMA SRI.N.A.SHAFEEK RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTING SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, WADANAPPILLY, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 152 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 14th day of January, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner faces allegations in a crime registered for the offence of cheating punishable under Section 420 r/w. 34 I.P.C. The petitioner is the second accused. Altogether there are only two accused persons. 2. The crux of the allegations is that the first accused induced the defacto complainant to part with an amount of Rs.30,000/- on 5.3.2007. The defacto complainant was promised that his son will be given an employment abroad. Amount was received by the first accused. At the instruction of the first accused, the defacto complainant and his son proceeded to Mumbai. There accused 1 and 2 induced the defacto complainant to believe that a fresh passport has to be secured in order to get employment abroad. Accordingly the defacto complainant and his son had to return. After taking a new passport, an amount of Rs.75,000/- had to be paid to the second accused through the B.A.No. 152 of 2008 2 bank account of the petitioner herein. It is the case of the defacto complainant that accused 1 and 2 have collusively induced him to part with money. Money was not returned. VISA was not secured. The defacto complainant realised that the attempt of accused 1 and 2 in collusion was to defraud him. Investigation is in progress. The first accused has not been arrested so far. Investigation has revealed that an amount of Rs.75,000/- has actually been received in the bank account of the petitioner/A2. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner/A2 submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent. He has no connection with the defacto complainant or his son. He admits that the first accused had wanted him to receive certain amounts sent to him by persons in his account and the second accused therefore had permitted the amounts to be received in his account and had withdrawn the same. According to the petitioner he had withdrawn the amounts and handed over the same to the first accused. In these circumstances it is prayed that anticipatory bail may be granted to the petitioner. B.A.No. 152 of 2008 3 4. The learned Prosecutor opposes the application. He submits that the petitioner has to be interrogated. It would be too meek and naive now to swallow the version of the petitioner that without any connection with the defacto complainant, the defacto complainant had sent money to the petitioner and he had only handed over the same to the first accused. The petitioner deserves to be interrogated and truth has to be ascertained. The petitioner may not be permitted to arm himself with an order of anticipatory bail at this stage, submits the Prosecutor. 5. I have considered all the relevant inputs. I find merit in the opposition by the learned Prosecutor. I am unable to find any features in this case, which would justify the invocation of the extra ordinary equitable discretion under section 438 Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioner. This I am satisfied is a fit case where the petitioner must resort to the ordinary and normal procedure of appearing before the Investigator or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the ordinary course. B.A.No. 152 of 2008 4 6. This application is accordingly dismissed. I may however hasten to observe that if the petitioner appears before the learned Magistrate and applies for bail after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate must proceed to pass orders on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. (R. BASANT) Judge tm