IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 22ND MARCH 2010 / 1ST CHAITHRA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 814 of 2010() --------------------------------------- CRIME NO.1742/2009 OF PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION. .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------- GIREESA KUMAR, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.T.K.PONNAPPAN, 32/1114 B, KALAVATH ROAD, EDAPPALLY SOUTH VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, PALARIVATTOM POST, ERNAKULAM-682 025. BY ADV. SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR, PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. *2. SALURA ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD, CHIRAMMEL HOUSE, PERUMANUR P.O., KOCHI- 15, REPRESENTED BY DIRECTOR LUKOSE THOMAS. SRI. M.S.BREEZ, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.A.JOSEPH MANAVALAN FOR ADDL R2 (* ADDL. 2ND RESPONDENT IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE ORDER DATED 22/3/2010 IN CRL.M.A. NO.1536/2010.) THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/03/2010 ALONG WITH BA NO. 815 OF 2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. Nos. 814 & 815 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 22nd day of March, 2010 O R D E R These are applications for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner in both these cases is one Gireesa Kumar, who is the first accused in Crime Nos. 1742 of 2009 and 79 of 2010 of Palarivattom Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The case of the de facto complainant in the respective cases is that they booked for allotment of flats, in the flats constructed by a company, of which, the petitioner is the Managing Director. Subsequently, the de facto complainant in the respective cases cancelled the request for allotment of flats. The company had to repay the amount which the de facto complainant had paid. It is stated by the petitioner that there was an understanding that on cancellation, the amounts would be repaid only after the allotment of the flats was made to some B.A. Nos. 814 & 815 of 2010 2 other persons. Towards repayment of the amount, cheques were given to the de facto complainant. On presentation of the cheques, they were dishonoured. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant that the disputes between the parties have been settled. Joint statements signed by the petitioner and the respective de facto complainant, are also filed. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that in view of the settlement of the disputes between the parties, it is not necessary to arrest the petitioner or the other accused in the case. The submission made by the learned Public Prosecutor is recorded and the Bail Applications are closed. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the order before the investigating officer without delay. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm