IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 7874 of 2008()
1. U.K.MOHAMMED ALI, S/O.KUTTY HASSAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRIC.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :10/02/2009
O R D E R
K. HEMA, J.
---------------------------------------------------
Bail Appl. No. 7874 of 2008
---------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 10th day of February, 2009.
ORDER
Petition for anticipatory bail.
2. The alleged offences are under Sections 406 and
420 of IPC. According to prosecution, petitioner has taken two
telephone connections form B.S.N.L. under Super Mega Plan. He
made several calls and thereby a huge amount of more than
Rs.44 lakhs is due to B.S.N.L. But, petitioner closed down his
institution and he absconded without paying the amount. Several
notices were issued to petitioner, but he had not turned up to
make the payment. Chief Accounts Officer of the B.S.N.L. filed
the complaint.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that a
Writ Petition was filed by petitioner against revenue recovery and
in that matter the B.S.N.L. entered appearance and admitted that
the amount due is only Rs. 35 lakhs and not Rs. 44 lakhs, as
alleged in the compliant. The B.S.N.L. had agreed that amount
can be deposited in instalments. Therefore, there is a settlement
and petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted.
[B.A.No.7874/08] 2
4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor
submitted that the crime was registered as early as on 8.10.2008
and the earlier application filed by petitioner was dismissed as per
order dated 21.11.2008 in B.A.No.7134 of 2008 and all the
contentions were considered by this Court in detail in the said
order. Petitioner was directed to surrender before the
investigating officer without delay and co-operate with the
investigation. Petitioner has not surrendered so far even after
dismissal of the order. Hence, it is not a fit case to grant
anticipatory bail, it is submitted.
5. On hearing both sides and on going through
Annexure-I order, considering the nature of the allegations made,
I already found that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail.
I have also come to a finding that interrogation of petitioner is
required in this case and a direction was also given to surrender
before the investigating officer. Petitioner has not complied with
the order, but again filed a petition for anticipatory bail. If
anticipatory bail is granted, I am satisfied that this will amount to
review of the order, which is barred by Section 362 of Cr.P.C.
Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there is no settlement
between the parties as per the instructions to him. In the above
circumstances, the following order is passed:
[B.A.No.7874/08] 3
1) Petitioner shall surrender before the
investigating officer forthwith and co-operate
with the investigation. Whether he surrenders
or not, police is at liberty to arrest him and
proceed in accordance with law.
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.