High Court Kerala High Court

K.R.Venugopal vs Stae Of Kerala Represented By The on 17 February, 2009

Kerala High Court
K.R.Venugopal vs Stae Of Kerala Represented By The on 17 February, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 289 of 2009()


1. K.R.VENUGOPAL, AGED 38 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STAE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.  K.SHAJ

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA

 Dated :17/02/2009

 O R D E R
                             K.HEMA, J.
                       --------------------------------
                       B.A. No.289 OF 2009
                       --------------------------------
           Dated this the 17th day of February, 2009


                              O R D E R

This petition is for anticipatory bail.

2. The alleged offence is under Section 420 I.P.C.

According to prosecution, during 2001 to 2006, an amount of

Rs.9Lakhs were received from the defacto complainant

promising that interest at the rate between 18% and 21% will

be paid on the amount. Neither the amount nor the interest

was paid and hence, the complaint.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that

petitioner has not committed any offence. He is a money

lender by profession and due to financial stringency, he could

not repay the amount in full. No offence under Section 420

I.P.C. is made out on the allegations made. It is also submitted

that petitioner has a settlement with the defacto complainant

and Rs.1,50,000/- was returned. Petitioner is prepared to raise

the amount and pay the entire money due. Therefore,

anticipatory bail may be granted, it is submitted.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that Rs.1.5 Lakhs

B.A.No.289 of 2009
2

are already paid and there was an agreement to pay the

balance. But petitioner has not complied with the terms of

agreement. Therefore, this petition is opposed.

On hearing both sides, considering the serious nature of

the allegations made, I do not think that it is fit to grant

anticipatory bail to petitioner. However, petitioner is at liberty

to surrender before the Magistrate court concerned and seek

bail under Section 437 Cr.P.C. It is made clear that the

consideration for grant of bail under Section 437 Cr.P.C. are

different from consideration for granting anticipatory bail

under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The rejection of anticipatory bail

may not be a ground to refuse bail under Section 437 Cr.P.C.

Learned Magistrate will consider the various facts and dispose

of the bail application if any filed, untrammelled by any of the

observations if any made, on merit in this case. Petitioner is

bound to surrender to law.

Hence, the following order is passed :-

i) Petitioner shall surrender before the

investigating officer or before the Magistrate

court concerned without any delay and

B.A.No.289 of 2009
3

co-operate with the investigation. Whether he

surrenders or not, police is at liberty to arrest

him and proceed in accordance with law.

ii) No further application for anticipatory bail by

petitioner in this crime will be entertained by

this court.

The petition is dismissed.

K.HEMA, JUDGE

pac