IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 26TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 4TH ASWINA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 5945 of 2011 CRIME NO.225 OF 2011 OF MUVATTUPUZHA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM. APPLICANT/ACCUSED NO.1 ------------------------------------------ ADARSH JOSE, S/O.JOSE, NAARAKATHUNKAL (H), MANAGING DIRECTOR, ALANGAR TRAVELS, MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING THE S.I. OF POLICE, MUVATTUPUZHA POLICE STATION. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/09/2011, ALONGWITH B.A.NOS.5946 AND 5949 OF 2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ Bail Appl. Nos.5945, 5946 & 5949 OF 2011 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 26th day of September, 2011 O R D E R These are applications for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. These Bail Applications arise from Crime Nos.225/2011, 1043/2010 and 166/2011 of Muvattupuzha Police Station, Ernakulam District. 2. The offences alleged in all the cases are under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The allegation is that the accused persons took money from the respective de facto complainants promising visa. Visa was not arranged and the amount was not repaid. In Crime Nos.225 of 2011 and 1043 of 2010, a sum of Rupees One lakh each was taken from the respective de facto complainants, while in Crime No.166 of 2011, the allegation is that a sum of `1,50,000/- was collected from the de facto complainant. 4. It is stated that the petitioner is the Managing Director of Alangar Travels, a travel agency at Muvattupuzha. Accused Nos.2 and 3 are the employees of the travel agency. BAIL APPL.NOs.5945, 5946 & 5949 OF 2011 :: 2 :: 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the money was paid to Southern Agencies, Chennai and the petitioner was acting only as an agent of the Southern Agencies, Chennai. The allegation made by the de facto complainant is that money was paid to the petitioner. Whether there was an agency and whether some other person is liable are all matters to be considered at the time of trial. 6. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to get the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The matter requires investigation. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be required in the case. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, it would adversely affect the proper and smooth investigation of the case. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/