IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 12TH JULY 2010 / 21ST ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 4081 of 2010() ------------------------------------------ (CRIME NO.561/2010 OF MATHILAKAM POLICE STATION,THRISSUR DISTRICT) ...... PETITIONER/3RD ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------ THAJUDHEEN.A.K,AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.KUNJU MUHAMMAD,ANNAKODI HOUSE,EDATHIRUTHI.P.O, EDATHIRINJI VILLAGE,THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH CHAKYAT RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------------------------- THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,MATHILAKAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT,REP;BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. V. TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K. HEMA, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 4081 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 12th day of July, 2010 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, first accused had taken the car from the de facto complainant. Later, accused nos. 1 to 3 in furtherance of their common intention to cheat de facto complainant pledged the car with intend to cause wrongful gain to them by obtaining Rs. 50,000/- from the financiers. This was done without the knowledge of the de facto complainant and he sustained loss. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner's name was not in the F.I. Statement. He only introduced first and second accused to a money lender. He has no transaction with the de facto complainant. De facto complainant did not entrust the car to petitioner, even as per the F.I. Statement. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that as per the materials in the case diary, petitioner has a specific role in the transaction and the car was pledged B.A. No. 4081 / 2010 2 with the financiers by accused nos. 1 to 3. They had raised money to the tune of Rs. 50,000/-. Petitioner's custodial interrogation is necessary to ascertain the manner in which the money is spent etc. 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that petitioner's custodial interrogation is necessary for the purpose of an effective investigation. Considering the nature of the allegations made also, I am satisfied that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE ln