IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 1ST MARCH 2010 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 7704 of 2009() ------------------------------------- CRMP.3622/2009 of DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD CRIME NO.471/2008 OF TOWN SOUTH POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD. .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------ SURESH.K., S/O.APPUNNI, AGED 32 YEARS, PADINJARECODE HOUSE, POATTANCHERRY POST, ATHIMANI, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO SMT.C.M.CHARISMA SRI.N.A.SHAFEEK SRI.M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN (OASIS) RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTING S.I. OF POLICE, TOWN SOUTH POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. SRI. M.S. BREEZ, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. T. SANKARAN, J. ------------------------- B.A. No.7704 of 2009 ---------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of March, 2010 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.1 in Crime No.471/2008 of Town South Police Station, Palakkad. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 395 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The gist of the prosecution case is the following: The de facto complainant is conducting a travel agency at Thodupuzha. Accused No.2 is a travel agent operating at Palakkad. Accused No.2 assured the de facto complainant that Visas would be arranged to the customers of the de facto complainant. Accused No.2 requested the de facto complainant to visit palakkad. The de facto complainant and his friend, Shaji went to Palakkad on 5/9/2008 and stayed in a hotel. Accused No.2 persuaded them to go to another hotel. At that time, accused No.1 came there. He stated that he would arrange a car. Accused No.2 and the de facto complainant went to Kairali Hotel in that car. Shaji, the friend of the de facto complainant was B.A. No.7704/2009 2 having in his possession a suit case containing Rs.4 lakhs and the travel documents. He had not gone to Hotel Kairali. Later, while Shaji was walking along the side of the road, accused Nos. 3 to 5 came there in a car and forcibly took the suit case containing money and documents from Shaji. Prosecution case is that accused Nos.3 to 5 did so as directed by accused Nos. 1 and 2 and also as a result of the conspiracy among the accused. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is nothing to connect the petitioner with the offence. On hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and also considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that the contention raised by the petitioner can be accepted. Prima facie, there are materials to connect the petitioner with the offence. 5. The offences alleged against the petitioner are grave in nature. This is not a fit case where anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be required. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case. I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to the B.A. No.7704/2009 3 discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm