IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 19TH BHADRA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 1929 of 2009() ----------------------------------------- CRMA.881/2009 of DISTRICT COURT, ALAPPUZHA CRIME NO.84/2009 OF KUTHIYATHODU POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------- 1. M.G.BHASURANGAN,S/O.GOPALAN,RETIRED HEADMASTER, CHITHRALAYA HOUSE,KUTHIYATHODU P.O. KODAMTHURUTHU,CHERTHALA. 2. MANOJ BHASURANGAN S/O. BHASURANGAN, CHITHRALAYA HOUSE,KUTHIYATHODU P.O. KODAMTHURUTHU,CHERTHALA. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER SMT.K.A.SANJEETHA RESPONDENT/ STATE: ------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,KOCHI-31. SRI. TEKCHAND, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No.1929 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 10th day of September, 2009 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.84/2009 of Kuthiyathodu Police Station, Alappuzha. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 403, 406, 418 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The Petitioners are the Directors of a Private Limited Company namely Chithralaya Finance & Chits. The defacto complainant filed a private complaint before the Magistrate’s court, which was forwarded to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, the crime was registered. 4. The Bail Application was being adjourned from time to time. When it came up for hearing on 24/6/2009, the following order was passed: B.A. No.1929/ 2009 2 “Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on Annexure II series of documents to show that part payments were made to the de facto complainant and her relatives. It is also stated in the Bail Application that the petitioners have sold a property at Kottayam for Rupees One Crore and mortgaged other properties for Rs.45 lakhs and those amounts were utilised for discharging the liability. Learned Public Prosecutor sought time to get instructions on these aspects. Post after two weeks. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioners will not be arrested till then.” 5. Again, the matter was posted on several days. On 20/8/2009, when the case was taken up, the following order was passed: “It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are prepared to pay whatever amount is due to the defacto complainant and settle the whole dispute. B.A. No.1929/ 2009 3 Post in the 2nd week of September, 2009. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioners will not be arrested till then.” 6. Today, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the matter is not settled. The counsel is not in a position to say whether the matter could be settled or not. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that the petitioners are entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm