IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 14TH KARTHIKA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6723 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.2020/2008 OF PERUMBAVOOR POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONERS (S): ACCUSED --------------------------- 1. NIZAR.K.M, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O. MOHAMMDALI, KAKKATTIL HOUSE, MARAMPALLY.P.O, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. GHUZRO.C.A, AGED 20 YEARS, S/O. ALI, CHEENICKAL HOUSE, MARAMPALLY.P.O, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY S.I OF POLICE, PERUMBAVOOR POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT (THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM) PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.6723 of 2008 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th November, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC. According to prosecution, a mini lorry was purchased in the name of defacto complainant. For purchasing the lorry, a fund (Rs.50,000.-) was advanced by the petitioners, who are accused nos.1 and 2. The sale was effected for Rs.1 lakh. There was also a finance to the tune of Rs.85,000/-. Petitioners sold the vehicle without the knowledge of defacto complainant to a third person for dismantling the vehicle. When this fact came to the notice of defacto complainant, a complaint is filed alleging that the defacto complainant was cheated. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that petitioners are aged 23 years and 20 years. They are innocent of the allegations made. The lorry is already seized. Admittedly, some amount was advanced by petitioners also. If petitioners are detained in custody, they will be put to irreparable injury, harm and loss and hence, anticipatory bail may be granted, it is BA No.6723/2008 2 submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned public prosecutor submitted that though petitioners have advanced some amount, they have no right to sell the vehicle. They not only sold it, but, it was so done, for the purpose of dismantling the same. The allegations made against petitioners are serious and hence, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied of the submissions made by learned public prosecutor. Even if the age of petitioners is considered, I am not persuaded to grant them anticipatory bail. However, it is made clear that all the contentions raised including age can be taken raised while filing a petition for bail under Section 437 Crl.P.C. Needless to say, consideration for anticipatory bail is different from consideration for bail under Section 437 or 438 Crl.P.C. With these observations, this petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE csl