IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 8TH ASWINA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 4577 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO. 267/2008 OF PUDUKKAD POLICE STATION PETITIONER (S): -------------------- PRABHAKARAN, 62 YEARS S/O.THAZHEKKAT KUNJUKUTTIYAMMA MADAM VAZHIYIL, NARAYANGADI DESOM KALLOOR VILLAGE THRISSUR BY ADV. SRI.A.C.DEVY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A. No. 4577 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 30th day of September,2008 O R D E R Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 415, 416 and 420 IPC. According to prosecution, petitioner is a co-owner of an extent of 8.125 cents of property, along with two others. There was an attachment order from the court on the property, as per order dated 23-5-2007. Even though petitioner was aware of this fact, he executed an agreement and sold the property in favour of defacto-complainant, on 30-6-2007, suppressing the fact that there was an attachment and thereby, he cheated defacto- complainant. On these allegations a complaint was filed by defacto-complainant. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that one person by name Jyothis filed a suit against petitioner on the basis of a cheque purported to be issued by petitioner in favour of him, forging a blank cheque leaf and in the said suit, the property which was sold in favour of the petitioner and two others as the President and Secretary and Treasurer of the committee was attached. Defacto-complainant had caused a publication to be effected before execution of the sale deed in her favour, since the original document was missing. It was thereafter that the attachment order was obtained by said Jyothish over the property. BA 4577/08 -2- Petitioner has not committed any offence, it is submitted. To support his contention, documents are produced. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that there is nothing in the sale deed to show that property was sold in favour of any committee as the President, Secretary and Treasurer, etc. It will only appear that it is petitioner's personal property. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioner is required for interrogation. It is clear that petitioner sold property to defacto-complainant, even though there was an attachment on the property, suppressing the said fact. 5. On hearing both sides, on the facts of this case, I am not satisfied that this is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. I am not satisfied of the defence set up in this case also. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. mn.