IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2009 / 16TH ASHADHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 3017 of 2009() ---------------------------------------- CRIME NO.391/2009 OF PANANGAD POLICE STATION. PETITIONER/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------- SAMUVEL.C ,S/O.C.V.VAREED, AGED 35 YEARS PERMANENT RESIDENT OF POTHANOOR, NELLAKKARA, POST-POLPAKARA, EDAPPAL VIA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT PRESENTLY RESIDING AT ELDORA DAS AGENCIES, PLOT NO.2, SECTOR NO.2,SHOP NO.6.,NEELKANT CORNER SANPADA EAST, NAVI MUMBAI 400 705. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.RAMACHANDRAN SRI.T.NIKLAVU SRI.M.A.SHAFIK SRI.ASHIK K.MOHAMMED ALI RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA,REP. BY DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. SRI. TEKCHAND, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No.3017 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 7th day of July, 2009 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.391/2009 of Panangad Police Station. 2. The defacto complainant filed a complaint before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam, which was forwarded to the police under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, the crime was registered against the petitioner under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The gist of the prosecution case is as follows: The petitioner purchased a car worth more than Rs.18 lakhs from the defacto complainant. The petitioner complained about the defect in the engine of the car and he also wanted automatic gear transmission version. The engine of the vehicle was replaced. The petitioner was reluctant to take the vehicle. The petitioner offered to sell the vehicle to B.A. No.3017/ 2009 Page numbers the defacto complainant and the defacto complainant agreed to take the vehicle for a price which was agreed upon. However, the petitioner stated that he has to discharge the loan taken from the Bank of Baroda and for discharging that loan, a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- was necessary. Accordingly, the defacto complainant issued a cheque for Rs.15,00,000/- to the petitioner. The petitioner encashed the cheque. However, he did not discharge the loan to the Bank of Baroda. He continues to pay the monthly installments payable to the Bank of Baroda. Possession of the vehicle was given to the defacto complainant, but the ownership was not changed, as the petitioner did not discharge the loan as agreed upon. 4. In the facts and circumstances mentioned above, I do not think that this is a fit case where the discretionary relief under Section 438 can be granted in favour of the petitioner. The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm