IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2010 / 25TH ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 4096 of 2010() ----------------------------- CMP.3459/2010 of J.M.F.C.-I,NEYYATINKARA .................... (CRIME NO.243/2010 OF POOVAR POLICE STATION) PETITIONERS ------------------------------- 1. SURENDRAN, S/O.AMBROSE POTHUVAL VEEDU, PLANTHOTTAM, KANCHAMPZHINJI PO, THIRUPURAM VILLAGE NEYYATTINKARA TALUK. 2. MANI, S/O.CHELLAKKANNU KALLIYIL VEEDU, NALLOORVATTOM, KULATHOOR VILLAGE. 3. VINU, S/O.LASAR CHECKALACKAL HOUSE, ARUVIPPURAM, NEYYATTINKARA. 4. SABEENA, W/O. VINU CHECKALACKAL HOUSE, ARUVIPPURAM, NEYYATTINKARA. BY ADV. SRI.M.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE POOVAR POLICE STATION, POOVAR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J ----------------------- B.A No.4096 OF 2010 -------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of July 2010 ORDER This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 420, 120 B r/w 34 of IPC. According to prosecution, accused numbers 1 to 4 hatched a criminal conspiracy to cheat de facto complainant and thereby executed an agreement for sale of the property of de facto complainant in favour of first accused. He was induced to pay Rs.3,00,000/- as advance to first accused. Thereafter, before expiry of the period stated in the agreement, first accused sold the property to third and fourth accused. Second accused also was a signatory to the sale deed as a witness to the agreement executed between de facto complainant and first accused. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the transaction is of a civil nature. De facto complainant filed a suit for realisation of money. Third and fourth accused are innocent of the allegations made. They are only bonafide purchasers. Second accused was only a mediator. After the sale took place, first accused sold the property to third and fourth accused since, he had a doubt that de facto complainant will not act in accordance with the terms of agreement and they purchased the property from first accused. B.A No.4096 OF 2010 2 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that though an agreement of sale was executed and de facto complainant issued a lawyer notice stating his willingness to act in accordance with the agreement, first accused sold the property to third and fourth accused with a view to cheat de facto complainant. It is also not correct to say that second accused has no involvement in the offence and that he is only a mediator etc. Second accused was a mediator for both the first and second transaction. Knowing that de facto complainant had paid Rs.3,00,000/- to first accused and a sale deed is to be executed by first accused to de facto complainant, second accused stood as a witness to the sale deed executed in favour of third and fourth accused. His role is not as innocent as alleged. However, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that he has no objection in granting anticipatory bail to third and fourth accused on taking into account their limited role in the transaction. 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied of the submissions made by learned Public Prosecutor and I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to first and second accused. Admittedly, the sale deed was executed before the expiry of period stated in the agreement which was executed between de facto complainant and first accused. However, cosidering the limited B.A No.4096 OF 2010 3 role of accused number 3 and 4, I find that anticipatory bail can be granted to them.Hence, the following order is passed. (1) Prayer for anticipatory bail by first and second accused is rejected. (2) Third and fourth accused shall, in the event of their arrest, be released on bail on their executing bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer on the following condition: (i) They shall report before the Investigating Officer as and when directed and co-operate with investigation. (3) Anticipatory bail granted in favour of third and fourth accused will be in force only for a period of 20 days from today and in the mean time, they shall seek regular bail from the court concerned. (4) No further application for anticipatory bail by first and second accused in this case will be entertained by this court hereafter. Petition is partly allowed. vdv K.HEMA, JUDGE