IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2008 / 1ST MAGHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 8133 of 2007() ----------------------------- CRMP.4111/2007 of II ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, KOLLAM CRIME NO.516/2007 OF ANCHALUMMOODU POLICE STATION .................... : PETITIONERS/ACCUSED --------------------------- 1. SATHEESAN, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.PRABHAKARAN, R/AT SINDHU BHAVAN, KUREEPUZHA, PERINADU P.O., PERINADU VILLAGE, KOLLAM. 2. NAZAR, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED KUNJU LABBA, R/AT MADEENA MANZIL, ADITYA NAGAR 101, VADAKKEVILA P.O., VADAKKEVILA VILLAGE, KOLLAM. 3. JOBOY THAMPAN, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.VARGHESE, R/AT SEALAND, NATIONAL NAGAR 94, VADAKKEVILA P.O., POLAYATHODU, VADAKKEVILA VILLAGE, KOLLAM. 4. AMANULLA, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.SHAHUL HAMEED, R/AT SABIDA MANZIL, THEJAS NAGAR-197, VADAKKEVILA P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. SMT.T.S.MAYA (THIYADIL) SMT.C.VIJAYAKUMARI RESPONDENTS: ------------- THE SUB INSPECTOR, ANCHALUMOODU POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. JAI GEORGE SRI.JOHN K.GEORGE (DEFACTO COMPLAINANT) THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- B.A.No.8133 of 2007 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of January 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioners are accused 2 to 5. Altogether there are seven accused persons. The crux of the allegations against the accused persons, as explained by the learned Public Prosecutor, is that the de facto complainant had paid Rs.12.5 lakhs to the first accused, who had orally agreed for the sale of 103 acres of land belonging to him. Power of attorney was also allegedly executed in favour of the de facto complainant. The de facto complainant, it is averred, had handed over the said deed of power of attorney and the other documents to the second accused to raise a loan of Rs.1.05 lakhs. The second accused, who came into possession of the documents, along with the other accused, allegedly planned to sell the property to some others. Crime has been registered. Investigation is in progress. The petitioners apprehend imminent arrest. 2. Notice was given. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the police has objection against grant of anticipatory bail only against the second accused. The second B.A.No.8133/08 2 accused had received the documents from the de facto complainant and had handed over the same to the first accused, it is alleged. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the second accused is also innocent and is entitled for grant of anticipatory bail in his favour. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is not even an assertion that the first accused was authorised to effect sales under the said power of attorney. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the power of attorney document does only authorise the de facto complainant to perform acts in relation to registration and there is nothing to show that the de facto complainant was given authority to sell the property or to execute the document of sale. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the fault really lies with the de facto complainant, who on his own assertion, had pledged the power of attorney document along with the other documents allegedly received from the first accused to the second accused. In any view of the matter, the second accused has not committed any offence. There is not even a specific allegation except an expression of apprehension that any offence has been committed. In these circumstances, B.A.No.8133/08 3 anticipatory bail may be granted to the petitioners, it is submitted. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor as also the de facto complainant and having considered all the relevant inputs, I am satisfied that all the accused can be granted anticipatory bail notwithstanding the opposition of the learned Public Prosecutor against grant of bail to the second accused. At this early stage of investigation I shall not embark on more detailed discussion about the acceptability of the allegations or the credibility of the data collected. Suffice it to say that I have considered all the relevant inputs. Appropriate conditions which shall safeguard the interests of a fair, efficient and expeditious investigation can of course be imposed. 5. In the result, this petition is allowed. Following directions are issued under Section 438 Cr.P.C in favour of the petitioners. i) Petitioners shall surrender before the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction at 11 a.m on 28/01/2008. They shall be released on regular bail on condition that : a) The first petitioner/second accused shall execute bond B.A.No.8133/08 4 for Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate. b) All the other petitioners shall execute bonds for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate. ii) The petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation before the investigating officer between 10 a.m and 5 p.m on 29/01/2008 and 30/01/2008. During this period, the investigating officer shall be at liberty to interrogate the petitioners in custody and take all necessary steps for the proper conduct of the investigation in this crime. Thereafter the first petitioner/second accused shall so appear on all Mondays and Fridays between 10 a.m and 12 noon for a period of three months and subsequently as and when directed by the investigating officer in writing to do so. The other petitioners/accused shall make themselves available for interrogation as and when directed by the investigating officer in writing to do so. (iii) If the petitioners do not appear before the learned B.A.No.8133/08 5 Magistrate as directed in clause (i), directions issued above shall thereafter stand revoked and the police shall be at liberty to arrest the petitioners and deal with them in accordance with law, as if these directions were not issued at all. (iv) If they were arrested prior to 28/01/2008, they shall be released from custody on the first petitioner/second accused executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) and the other accused executing bonds for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) without any sureties, undertaking to appear before the learned Magistrate on 28/01/2008. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge B.A.No.8133/08 6 B.A.No.8133/08 7 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.CNo. ORDER 21ST DAY OF MAY2007