IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 21ST APRIL 2009 / 1ST VAISAKHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 2022 of 2009 -------------------------------------- (CRIME NO. 250/2007 OF VIYOOR POLICE STATION) .............. PETITIONER/ ACCUSED: ----------------------------------- SALIMEN, S/O. MUTHUNAYAKOM, AYANTHITHOTTAM ROADNIKATHU VEEDU, PULLENTHERI, KUNNATHUKAL, NEYYATINKARA. BY ADV. MR.G.SUDHEER (KARAKONAM). RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. C.M. KAMMAPPU. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/04/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------------- B.A.No.2022 of 2009 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 21st April, 2009. ORDER Petitioner is the accused, in crime No.250/2007 of Viyoor Police Station, for the offence punishable under section 420 IPC, seeks an order of pre-arrest bail. 2. The allegation in the said crime is that on 28.3.2007, the de facto complainant, an agent of a transporting company entrusted the accused, who is the driver of a lorry bearing Reg.No. KL-2/7432, Asbestoses sheets worth Rs.80,000/- to unload at Ayoor. According to the police, during the investigation, it is found that the lorry owned by the petitioner was taken into custody by Parassala Police in Crime No.477/2007 of the said police station, on allegation that the said lorry was plying with a false number plate, and the petitioner was absconding in that case. But subsequently he was arrested. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is innocent of all the allegations levelled against him. BA No.2022/09 -:2:- 3. The learned Public Prosecutor stoutly opposed the prayer in this petition. It is the case of the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner is involved in other criminal cases. 4. I have carefully considered the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. The petitioner herein approached this Court by filing B.A.No.4608/2008 with a similar prayer and the same was dismissed. 5. Considering the seriousness of the allegations and the nature of the crime, especially, considering the fact that this Court has already rejected the prayer for anticipatory bail as per Annexure C order, I am not inclined to grant the relief as sought for especially when the petitioner miserably failed to make out a case to get an order in exercise of the extraordinary power of this Court under section 438 Cr.P.C. In the result, this petition is dismissed. kvm/- V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE BA No.2022/09 -:3:- kvm/-