IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND OCTOBER 2008 / 30TH ASWINA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6357 of 2008() ----------------------------- (CRIMENO.581/2008 OF BALUSSERY POLICE STATION) PETITIONER/ ACCUSED --------------------------- JOSE KYNADY, S/O. JOSEPH JACOB KYNADY, KUTTANADU HOUSE, BANK ROAD, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S. SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. ------------------------------------------------------- Bail Appl.No.6357 of 2008 -------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of October, 2008. ORDER Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under Section 420 IPC. According to prosecution, the petitioner by making false representation with fraudulent intention, dishonestly induced the de facto complainant to part with Rs.18,68,500/- in connection with the sale of 6 acres of land belonging to Cochin Malabar Estates and Industries Ltd. and thereafter, sale deed was not executed and amount was not repaid also and thereby petitioner cheated the de facto complainant. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegations made are not correct. There was a proposal to sell the property belonging to the above Company and the petitioner was asked to find out proposed buyers. Accordingly, de facto complainant was arranged to purchase the property and an agreement of sale was also executed. The de facto complainant was put in possession of the property and a sale deed was also executed by the Company, but the registration could not be completed, since, in the mean time, in a suit [B.A.No.6357/08] 2 filed by one of the shareholders, an injunction was obtained from the civil court against sale. The matter is now pending before this Court also as C.P.No.49 of 2004 and Company Case No.7 of 2006. The petitioner has authority and he acted only with such authority and that is why sale deed was executed by Company and copy of of sale deed is Annexure-II. The sale deed could not be registered because of unavoidable reasons as stated above. 4. It is also pointed out that in the complaint itself, it is mentioned that de facto complainant is in possession of the property. If the transaction is one between the petitioner and the de facto complainant alone, the petitioner cannot be kept in possession of the property. Unless the petitioner has the authority given by the Company the complainant cannot be given possession of the property. The complaint is lodged only because the Company could not register the documents and no element of cheating is involved. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that anticipatory bail can be granted on conditions. Hence the following order is passed: 1) Petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within seven days from today and make himself available for interrogation and co-operate with the investigation. 2) Petitioner shall, in the event of his arrest, be released on bail on his executing bond for Rs.25,000/- with two [B.A.No.6357/08] 3 solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer on the following conditions: i) The petitioner shall report before the investigating officer as and when directed. ii) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail. This petition is allowed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Krs.