IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 9TH JANUARY 2009 / 19TH POUSHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 8032 of 2008() ----------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN BA.6821/2008 Dated 07/11/2008 CRIME NO.524/08 OF TOWN SOUTH POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD PETITIONER ------------------------------ JAGADEESH MENON S/O.LATE PADMANABHA MENON, A-7 ANJALI GARDENS PALLIPURAM PO, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.H.BADARUDDIN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE TOWN SOUTH POLICE STATION PALAKKAD. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.M.S.BREEZE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 8032 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th January, 2009 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioner was running a travel agency. He received Rs.60,000/- from de facto complainant by making fraudulent representations and promising that visa will be arranged for his son. But, amount was not paid back, nor visa was arranged. Hence, the complaint. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that de facto complainant was working as a driver in the petitioner's travel agency and he filed a complaint before the police alleging that the salary was not paid. That was settled. Thereafter, another false complaint is filed. Petitioner is innocent of the allegations made and hence, anticipatory bail may be granted, it is submitted. It is also submitted that though de facto complainant would allege that petitioner owed money to him, BA.8032/08 2 no civil suit is filed. The police has also not arrested petitioner, though the crime was registered as early as on 28.6.2008. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the allegations made against petitioner are serious in nature. It is also submitted that petitioner filed an earlier application for anticipatory bail and it was dismissed as per order dated 7.11.2008 in B.A.No.6821 of 2008. In the above order, there was a direction by this Court to surrender before the Magistrate Court or before the investigating officer without any delay and co-operate with the investigation. Though the order was passed as early as on 7.11.2008, petitioner has not chosen to comply with the order. The crime is registered as early as on 4.10.2008 and the investigation is in a stand still, since petitioner is not co-operating with the investigation. It is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides and on going through Annexure- II order, it is clear that the contentions raised now are different from the contentions raised in the earlier application BA.8032/08 3 regarding motive etc. I have already found as per earlier order that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. I do not find any reasons to come to a different finding. Petitioner has not complied with the direction issued by this Court and the investigation could not gain any progress. Therefore, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail. 6. It is made clear that no further petition for anticipatory bail by petitioner will be entertained. The police is at liberty to arrest him at any time and proceed in accordance with law. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.