IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 22ND MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7285 of 2008() ------------------------------------------- (CRIME NO.608/2008 OF KONNI POLICE STATION,PATHANAMTHITTA) PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.5: ------------------------------------------- JYOTHI PRASAD, KRISHNA KRUPA, LAKSHMI VILASAM,VETTOOR P.O. PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. MR.S.SUBHASH CHAND RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT/STATE: -------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KONNI POLICE STATION, KONNI, PATHANAMTHITTA 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K. HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------------- Bail Appl. No. 7285 of 2008 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of February, 2009. ORDER Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 420, 465, 120B and 34 of IPC. According to prosecution, A1 to A5 are running financial institution. Rs.5 lakhs were received by the de facto complainant from the financial institution on different dates, out of chitty amount. When the amounts were received, as insisted by the accused, she had given cheques belonging to her husband, her sister and sister's husband. Those cheques were handed over to A1 to A16 and they filed cases against de facto complainant alleging that de facto complainant owed huge amounts to them and that cheques were issued to them which were bounced etc. A16 is de facto complainant's driver who allegedly committed theft of cheques from the dashboard of the car and those cheques were also used by A1 to A16 for filing false criminal complaints. Petitioner is the 5th accused in the case. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that de facto complainant's sister owed Rs.3.15 lakhs to petitioner (A5) and cheque was issued by her towards discharge of the amount. But the cheque was dishonoured on presentation in bank for insufficiency of fund. Hence, criminal complaint and civil suit [B.A.No.7285/08] 2 were filed against de facto complainant's sister. O.S.No. 81/2007 and S.T.No.1248 of 2007 were filed by petitioner. It was mentioned in the written statement field by de facto complainant's sister that the cheque was given, when de facto complainant took some money from “B.J. Financiers and Chit Funds”. But the present allegation is that the cheque was given to “Melethil Chits and Financiers” of which petitioner is a partner. If the de facto complainant's sister has issued any cheqeus and given to any other financiers petitioner is not liable for the same. 4. Learned Public prosecutor opposed this bail application and pointed out that allegations made in this case are serious in nature and it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that the written statement referred to by learned counsel for petitioner is the written statement filed by the de facto complainant's sister. She has to be questioned in respect of discrepancy, if any. But, based on the discrepancy, if any, in the written statement filed by petitioner's sister, it may not proper to enter a finding against de facto complainant. 6. On hearing both sides, on consideration of the nature of allegations made, I do not think that this is a fit case too gratn anticipatory bail. However, petitioner is at liberty to take up the same contentions before the trial court, if any application is filed by him under section 437 Cr.P.C. Considerations for granting anticipatory bail are different from the considerations for bail under section 437 Cr.P.C. So, the rejection of anticipatory bail by itself will not be a ground to reject an application filed under section 437 Cr.P.C. The bail application, if any filed by petitioner will be disposed of by learned Magistrate on merits on [B.A.No.7285/08] 3 consideration of the contentions raised by the petitioner and untrammelled by any of the observation, if any, made by this Court on merit in this order because, all the observations made herein are for deciding whether anticipatory bail can be granted. 7. The crime is registered as early as on 17.10.2008 and in the nature of the allegations made petitioner will be required for interrogation. He is bound to surrender. Hence, the following order is passed: 1) Petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer or the Magistrate Court concerned forthwith and co-operate with the investigation. 2) No further application for anticipatory bail by the petitioner in this crime will be entertained by this Court. Petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Krs.