IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2010 / 21TH POUSHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 7419 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.1021 OF 2009 OF VAIKOM POLICE STATION PETITIONER : ACCUSED ------------------------------ ARUN.P.MOHANAN, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O MOHANAN, PAZHVELIL HOUSE, AMBALLUR VILLAGE, KANJIRAMATTOM, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SABU RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, & S.I. OF POLICE, VAKKOM POLICE STATION, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.7419 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of January, 2010 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.2 in Crime No.1021 of 2009 of Vaikom Police Station. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The de facto complainant filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Vaikom which was forwarded to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The crime was accordingly registered. 4. The case of the de facto complainant is the following: He was the owner of a bus. On 5.1.2009, he sold the vehicle to the second accused. Second accused agreed to discharge the liability to the HDFC Bank and also Sreeram Financiers. He had also agreed to pay Rs.60,000/- to the de facto complainant. On 25.1.2009, the second accused returned the vehicle to the BA No.7419/2009 2 de facto complainant stating that he had to go to a Gulf country. He also stated that he would arrange other purchasers. Accordingly, the first accused was arranged for purchasing the vehicle. On the same terms on which the vehicle was sold to the second accused, the first accused purchased the vehicle. It is stated that though the first accused discharged the liability to the HDFC Bank, he did not discharge the liability to the other financier and he did not pay Rs.60,000/- to the de facto complainant. It is alleged that this was done as per the conspiracy hatched by accused Nos.1 and 2. 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence and other circumstances, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the petitioner, the officer in charge of the police station shall release him on bail on his executing bond for Rs.15,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions: a) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; BA No.7419/2009 3 b) The petitioner shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence; c) The petitioner shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail; d) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to be cancelled. The Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated above. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl