IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND OCTOBER 2008 / 30TH ASWINA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6363 of 2008() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO.476/2008 OF KODUVALLY POLICE STATION) PETITIONER/ACCUSED:- ---------------------------------------- 1. P.K.C. AHAMEDKUTTY, S/O AYMADUKUTTY,PARAKANDIYIL HOUSE, UNNIKULAM. 2. JOSE KYNADY, S/O JOSEPH JACOB, KYNADU HOUSE (KUTTANADU HOUSE), BANK ROAD, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S. SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------------- Bail Appl.No. 6363 of 2008 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of October, 2008. ORDER Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under Section 420 IPC. According to prosecution, 25 acres of property was agreed to be sold in favour of de facto complainant by the petitioners (A1 and A2), making false representations that the petitioners have authorisation from the Company by name 'Malabar Estates and Industries Limited' to sell the same to the de facto complainant. On the basis of such false representation, the de facto complainant was fraudulently and dishonestly induced to part with an amount of Rs.77,27,250/- to the petitioners. But the property was not given in possession and the sale deed was not executed. Thereby, the petitioners have allegedly cheated the de facto complainant. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there was an agreement between the de facto complainant and the petitioners in 2002 in respect of sale of 8.5 acres of property belonging to the company. The petitioners have authorisation to sell property on behalf of the Company. This will be evident from the fact that the said [B.A.No.6363/08] 2 property was handed over to the de facto complainant and the sale deed was also admittedly executed in respect of such property. But the present allegation is that 25 acres of property was agreed to be sold in 2006 on the basis of an oral agreement by the petitioners but there was no oral agreement. The petitioners have not received any money also. No documents are produced to prove the payment of money or any agreement between the parties. 4. The whole issue is pending before the Company court and there is only a civil dispute. A suit was filed by one of the shareholders of the Company and and injunction was issued against execution of sale deed by the civil court. The suit is also now transferred to the Company Court for consideration of the matter together. The de facto complainant filed a petition before the Company Court for a direction to register the sale deed in respect of 8.5 acres of land, for which the Company had already executed the sale deed. In that petition, no whisper is made regarding any oral agreement or receipt of money from the petitioners. These allegations are denied by the petitioners and the matter is pending before the Company court. The whole issue is an offshoot of a civil dispute and no offence is committed, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides, I find that anticipatory bail can be granted on conditions. [B.A.No.6363/08] 3 Hence the following order is passed: Petitioners shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within seven days from today and in the event of their arrest, they shall be released on bail on his executing bond for Rs.25,000/- each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer on the following conditions: i) The petitioners shall report before the investigating officer as and when directed. The petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation and make themselves available for interrogation. ii) The petitioners shall not commit any offence while on bail. This petition is allowed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Krs.