IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 16TH JANUARY 2009 / 26TH POUSHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 137 of 2009() ---------------------------- CMP.9376/2008 of J.M.F.C.,IRINJALAKUDA CRIME NO.361/08 OF KATTOOR POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3 ------------------------------------------- C.K.JOHNSON, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.LATE C.A.KUNJU VAREED, RESIDING AT CHAKKALA MATTATH HOUSE, P.O.ARIPALAM, VIA. IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.JOSE RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KATTOOR POLICE STATION, P.O.KATTOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. KOCHI-31. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 137 of 2009 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th January, 2009 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are 417, 420, 405, 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioner is a partner of a firm, which is engaged in the business of financing and also taking deposits from various customers. De facto complainant was persuaded to deposit the amount on making fraudulent representation that the amount will be returned etc. with interest. Though de facto complainant deposited Rs.1.5 lakhs, money was not repaid, in spite of repeated demands and thereby petitioner, along with other accused, committed offence of cheating etc. Petitioner is second accused in the crime. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that there is no provision in the partnership deed for receiving deposits, but the Managing Partner has received deposits, without knowledge of petitioner and other partners. Therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted, it is submitted. BA.137/09 2 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the deposits were received from various persons, including petitioner by the firm and as per the allegations, petitioner and other partners have committed the offence of cheating and it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. On hearing both sides, considering the seriousness of the allegations made, I am satisfied that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. The crime was registered as early as on 10.12.2008 and petitioner has not surrendered so far either before the Magistrate Court or before the investigating officer. Petitioner is directed to surrender before the investigating officer without any delay and co-operate with the investigation. Whether he surrenders or not, police is at liberty to arrest him and proceed in accordance with law. With this direction, petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.