IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 17TH JULY 2008 / 26TH ASHADHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 4491 of 2008() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO.178/08 OF PANOOR POLICE STATION, KANNUR DIST.) PETITIONER/ACCUSED NOS. 1 AND 2: --------------------------- 1. VILAYIL MUKKALI NAFEESA (AGED 61 YEARS) D/O.KHADEEJA, W/O.ABOOBACKER, VALIYA PARAMBATH HOUSE, PANNYANNUR AMSOM DESOM P.O.PANNYANNUR, THALASSERI TALUK. 2. MUHAMMAD FIJAS,(AGED 23 YEARS) S/O. ABOOBACKER,VALIYA PARAMBATH HOUSE, PANNYANNUR AMSOM DESOM P.O.PANNYANNUR, THALASSERI TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.M.ASOKAN SRI.DEVAPRASANTH.P.J. RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SHO, PANOOR POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S. SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------------- Bail Appl.No. 4491 of 2008 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of July, 2008. ORDER Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 420, 468 and 34 of IPC. The petitioners are the first and second accused. According to prosecution, petitioners have executed an agreement in favour of de facto complainant for sale of a property but a mortgage in favour of the bank was suppressed and thereby they cheated the de facto complainant. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that an agreement as Annexure-1 was executed between the parties for the sale of a property for an amount of Rs.4,60,000/-. Thereafter, Rs.1, 60,000/- was received towards part of sale consideration. No subsequent payment was effected by the de facto complainant and hence petitioners caused a lawyer notice, which was sent to the de facto complainant, revoking the agreement and copy of lawyer notice is Annexure-II. The registered notice was not served on the de facto complainant and it was returned stating that the addressee left India. Thereafter, the de facto complainant came back to India and insisted petitioners to sell the property on the basis of the agreement which was already revoked. But, the petitioners were not prepared for the same and hence de facto complainant filed a civil suit. Thereafter, a criminal complaint was also filed making false allegations, it is submitted. It was also pointed out that the alleged suppression of mortgage is not correct because mortgage is a registered one and it [B.A.4491/08] 2 will be revealed from the encumbrance certificate. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that charge has already been laid in this case. 5. On hearing both sides and on going through the records, I am satisfied that it is only just and proper to give anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Eventhough charge-sheet is laid, in fit cases, anticipatory bail can be granted so as to prevent pre-trial detention. Hence the following order is passed: 1) Petitioners shall surrender before the investigating officer within 7 days from the date of this order and make themselves available for interrogation. 2) Thereafter, in the event of arrest of the petitioners, they shall be produced before the Magistrate Court concerned and, if any application is filed for bail, they shall be released on bail on their executing bond for Rs.25,000/- each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate. Petition is allowed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Krs.