IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 19TH JULY 2011 / 28TH ASHADHA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 5371 of 2011(D) ------------------------------------------ [CRIME NO.470/2011 OF KALPATTA POLICE STATION, WAYANAD] .............. PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 2 AND 3: ------------------------------------------------- 1. K.B.NOUSHAD ALI, S/O.K.B.M.BADUSHA, AGED 50, MUNNAS APARTMENT, MESS HOUSE ROAD, KALPETTA, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 2. SHEMEEM NOUSHAD, W/O.K.B.NOUSHAD ALI, AGED 42 MUNNAS APARTMENT, MESS HOUSE ROAD, KALPETTA, WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KALPETTA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682 031. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. TEKCHAND. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/07/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------- B.A. No.5371 OF 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of July, 2011 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Petitioners are the 2nd and 3rd accused in Crime No.470 of 2011 of the Kalpetta Police Station, Wayanad District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (banning) Act, 1978. 3. The prosecution case is that the accused persons introduced themselves as the Directors of Florensa RTP (Galaxy Group), Bombay and induced the defacto complainant to deposit `33,000/- (Rupees Thirty three thousand only) with the Company. It is alleged that the accused did not issue shares and share certificate as B.A. No.5371 OF 2011 2 promised by them on payment of the amount. It is alleged that the accused persons have cheated the defacto complainant. 4. The allegation levelled against the accused are grave in nature. It is necessary to make a thorough investigation of the case. If the petitioners are granted anticipatory bail, a proper and smooth investigation of the crime would not be possible. The discretionary relief of anticipatory bail cannot be granted in favour of the petitioners against whom serious offences are alleged. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is, dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE. cms