IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2008 / 28TH SRAVANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 4629 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.256/2008 OF THALASSERY POLICE STATION PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED1 & 2:- ---------------------------------------- 1. ABOOBAKKAR V.K., S/O.ABU, AGED 54 YEARS, BUSINESS, VAYYAPURATH KUNNATH, KALLARAKKAL HOUSE, KUTHUPARAMBA, NARAVOOR AMSOM, DESOM, KOOTHUPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. AYISHA, HOUSE WIFE, AGED 40 YEARS, W/O. ABOOBAKKAR, VAYYAPURATH KUNNATH, KALLARAKKAL HOUSE, KUTHUPARAMBA, NARAVOOR AMSOM, DESOM, KOOTHUPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI. C.P.PEETHAMBARAN RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT:- ------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY S.H.O., THALASSERY POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/08/2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 4629 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 19th day of August, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 417, 420 read with section 34 IPC. According to the prosecution, 1st accused executed an agreement on 12-10-2006 agreeing to sell a shop in favour of the defacto-complainant. He also obtained Rs.2,10,000/- from the defacto-complainant. Thereafter, it is revealed that the shop actually belonged to the wife of the defacto-complainant. Husband and wife who were the petitioners thereby cheated the defacto-complainant, in furtherance of their common intention. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a blank stamp paper, which was handed over to one Ibrahim on 1- 8-2006, was misused by the defacto-complainant and the petitioners are absolutely innocent of the allegations made. It is also submitted that there is no allegation against the 2nd petitioner. 4. The application is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the details in the stamp paper itself reveal that the stamp paper was purchased on 12-10-2006 and the defence set BA 4629/08 -2- up is not correct. Considering the nature of the allegations made, anticipatory bail may not be granted to the 1st petitioner but he has no objection in granting anticipatory bail on conditions to 2nd petitioner, who is a lady, considering the nature of her involvement. 5. Hence, the following order is passed:- (1) Prayer for anticipatory bail for the 1st petitioner is rejected. (2) The second petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within seven days from today and make herself available for interrogation. (3) Thereafter, in the event of her arrest, if any, she shall be produced before the Magistrate court concerned in accordance with law. (4) On production of the petitioner before the learned Magistrate, and if any bail application is filed, the petitioner shall be released on bail on her executing a bond for Rs. 25,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate on BA 4629/08 -3- condition that she will report before the Investigating Officer as and when directed and co-operate with the investigation. The application is partly allowed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. mn.