IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 1ST MARCH 2010 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 1224 of 2010() --------------------------------------- CRIME NO.179/2010 OF ATTINGAL POLICE STATION. PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------- 1. GIRISH, S/O.MANOHARAN SREENIVAS HOUSE, MEENAMKULAM LANE, EDAPPALLI, ERNAKULAM, CHERAPAMBIL VEEDU ONNOCHIRA DESAM, THRIKKAKARA SOUTH VILLAGE ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. SATHEESH, S/O.SANKARAMKUTTY MENON PUORAPPELIL VEEDU, CHAITHANYAYIL EDAPPALLI VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOHN VARGHESE SRI.P.M.JOSEPH RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE ATTINGAL POLICE STATION. SRI. M.S. BREEZ, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 1224 of 2010 ----------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of March, 2010 O R D E R This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.179/2010 of Attingal Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 and 120 B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The case relates to sale of an item of immovable property. The de facto complainant agreed to purchase an item of immovable property. He paid Rs.23 lakhs to the owner of the property. He was ready to pay balance amount. But the owner of the property could not execute sale deed as the property had already been acquired by the Government. There was a mediation. The owner of the property agreed to repay the amount to the de facto complainant. It is alleged that the owner paid Rs.18 lakhs to the accused who acted as mediators, for being paid to the de facto complainant. Without disclosing the same to the de facto complainant, the accused persons B.A. No. 1224/ 2010 2 assured that all the cases would be settled and fraudulently forged a document as if it was executed and signed by the de facto complainant, agreeing to settle all the disputes. In that process, the accused persons unlawfully gained a sum of Rs.18 lakhs, causing loss to the owner of the land as well as to the de facto complainant. 4. The petitioners were arrested on 14/2/2010 and they were remanded to judicial custody. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the custody of the petitioners was given to the police for a period of three days and the petitioners were interrogated by the police. 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the duration of the judicial custody undergone by the petitioners, the nature of the offence and the present stage of investigation, I am of the view that bail can be granted to the petitioners on stringent conditions. 6. The petitioners shall be released on bail on their executing bond for Rs.50,000/- each with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Judicial B.A. No. 1224/ 2010 3 Magistrate of the First Class, Attingal subject to the following conditions:- A) The petitioners shall report before the Investigating Officer between 9 A.M. and 11 A.M. on all Mondays, till the final report is filed or until further orders. B) The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required. C) The petitioners shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence. D) The petitioners shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail. E) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to be cancelled. The Bail Application is allowed as above. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm