IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Bail Appl..No. 6723 of 2008() 1. NIZAR.K.M, AGED 23 YEARS, ... Petitioner 2. GHUZRO.C.A, AGED 20 YEARS, Vs 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY S.I ... Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA Dated :05/11/2008 O R D E R K.HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.6723 of 2008 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th November, 2008 O R D E R
This petition is for anticipatory bail.
2. The alleged offence is under Section 420 read with
Section 34 IPC. According to prosecution, a mini lorry was
purchased in the name of defacto complainant. For purchasing
the lorry, a fund (Rs.50,000.-) was advanced by the petitioners,
who are accused nos.1 and 2. The sale was effected for Rs.1
lakh. There was also a finance to the tune of Rs.85,000/-.
Petitioners sold the vehicle without the knowledge of defacto
complainant to a third person for dismantling the vehicle. When
this fact came to the notice of defacto complainant, a complaint
is filed alleging that the defacto complainant was cheated.
3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that
petitioners are aged 23 years and 20 years. They are innocent of
the allegations made. The lorry is already seized. Admittedly,
some amount was advanced by petitioners also. If petitioners are
detained in custody, they will be put to irreparable injury, harm
and loss and hence, anticipatory bail may be granted, it is
BA No.6723/2008 2
submitted.
4. This petition is opposed. Learned public prosecutor
submitted that though petitioners have advanced some amount,
they have no right to sell the vehicle. They not only sold it, but,
it was so done, for the purpose of dismantling the same. The
allegations made against petitioners are serious and hence, it is
not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted.
5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied of the
submissions made by learned public prosecutor. Even if the age
of petitioners is considered, I am not persuaded to grant them
anticipatory bail. However, it is made clear that all the
contentions raised including age can be taken raised while filing
a petition for bail under Section 437 Crl.P.C. Needless to say,
consideration for anticipatory bail is different from consideration
for bail under Section 437 or 438 Crl.P.C.
With these observations, this petition is dismissed.
K.HEMA, JUDGE
csl