BEFORE THE LOK ADALAT ORGANIZED BY THE KERALA HIGH COURT LEGAL SERVICES COMMITTEE PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.K.CHANDRASEKHARADAS (RETD. JUDGE, HIGH COURT OF KERALA) & SRI. K.J.THOMAS STANLEY (RETD.DIST.JUDGE) WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2008 / 4TH ASHADHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 3502 of 2008() ----------------------------- PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: ---------------------------- 1. KURIAN ITTY, AGED 58, S/O.LATE ITTY KURIAN, EDAMANNEL HOUSE, THAZHATHUVADAKARA P.O., VELLAVOOR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. THOMAS, AGED 26, S/O.KURIAN ITTY, DO-DO. BY ADV. SRI.K.R.SUNIL RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------- THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANIMALA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.DILEEP THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR DETERMINATION AT THE LOK ADALAT ON 25/06/2008, THE FOLLOWING ORDER IS PASSED: JUSTICE M.M.PAREED PILLAY (RETD.CHIEF JUSTICE,HIGH COURT OF KERALA) & JUSTICE T.K.CHANDRASEKHARA DAS (RETD.JUDGE, HIGH COURT OF KERALA) =========================== B.A. No.3502 of 2008 ============================ Dated this the 30th day of July, 2008 AWARD Heard the parties. This is an anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioners in a complaint filed under Section 420 before the Manimala Police Station in Crime No.103/2008. An extent of 9.25 cents(7.80 ares) comprised in Survey No.218/9 in Vellavoor Village, Changanacherry Taluk was sold to Smt.Thankamma, wife of Soman (defacto complainant). The counsel for the petitioner submits that after registration of the documents when the defacto complainant approached the Village Officer for mutation, Village Officer raised an objection that this property is encumbered with the State Bank of Travancore, Mundathanam Branch. According to the counsel for the petitioner it is true that the petitioner is owning the property in Survey No.210/4 measuring 55.90 ares and this property is charged for an amount taken from the said bank. The counsel states that the property which was sold away to the defacto complainant has not been charged with the bank. The Village Officer is present with B.A.No.3502/2008 2 Village records wherein it has been stated that the property which was sold to the defacto complainant was charged with the bank. Unless this endorsement in the village records is cleared by the bank, we feel that the Village officer is justified in refusing to grant mutation. The counsel for the petitioner submits that it is true that Rs.45,000/-(Rupees forty five thousand only) has been borrowed from the bank pledging the possession certificate including the property which was sold to the defacto complainant. The counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that his client is prepared to obtain certificate from the bank to the effect that the property sold away to the defacto complainant is not having any liability of the bank. On producing such certificate before the Village Officer, the Village Officer also agreed that mutation will be effected in respect of the property. In view of this settlement, the defacto complainant has to take necessary steps to withdraw the complaint. The bail application is settled as above. M.M.PAREED PILLAY (RETD.CHIEF JUSTICE,HIGH COURT OF KERALA) T.K.CHANDRASEKHARA DAS (RETD. JUDGE, HIGH COURT OF KERALA) dvs