IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 22ND MAGHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 616 of 2008() ---------------------------- CRIME NO.439/07 OF KATTAKKADA POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER/IST ACCUSED --------------------------------------- BABU, S/O.ABRAHAM @ ABRAI, PENIEN VILLA, KAKKAMUGAL, KATTAKKADA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.RAM MOHAN.G. SRI.G.P.SHINOD SRI.MANU V. RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT AND STATE AND INVESTIGATING OFFICER ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AT THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KATTAKKADA POLICE STATION, KATTAKKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- B.A. No. 616 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of February, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner is the 1st accused. He faces allegations in a crime registered for offences punishable, inter alia, under Secs.420, 454 and 380 of the IPC as also Secs.13 and 17 of the Kerala Money Lenders Act. 2. The de facto complainant had admittedly executed an assignment deed in favour of the wife of the 1st accused. The assignment deed reveals that it was a proper assignment deed handing over the possession and conveying the title of the property to the wife of the 1st accused. According to the de facto complainant now it was not intended to be acted upon and was executed only as a security for repayment of certain loan amounts advanced by the 1st accused to the de facto B.A. No. 616 OF 2008 -: 2 :- complainant. According to the petitioner, it was a proper sale deed and the same has been acted upon. Mutation has been effected and tax has been paid by the wife of the petitioner. 3. Be that as it may, the crux of the allegations is that on 23/12/07, long after the execution of the sale deed on 8/3/07, the accused persons, including the petitioner, had formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and had destroyed a shop building in the property in question and had committed theft of articles kept in the shop run in the said building. A crime has been registered. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner is the 1st accused. Altogether, there are 15 accused persons. The petitioner is named in the F.I.R. also. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 4. According to the petitioner, the allegations are raised mala fides and without any bona fides. As early as on 15/12/07 an order of injunction has been obtained by the wife of the petitioner injuncting the de facto complainant from trespassing into the property in question. Admittedly, no steps have been taken to vacate the said order. It is at that stage that the B.A. No. 616 OF 2008 -: 3 :- present allegations have been raised. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the father of the de facto complainant is a retired police official who wields considerable influence in the police department. It is such influence wielded by the father of the de facto complainant that has resulted in the registration of this case. The petitioner apprehends vexatious arrest by the police who are succumbing to the influence wielded by the father of the de facto complainant. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor does not oppose the application for anticipatory bail. After discussions at the Bar, the learned Public Prosecutor submits that appropriate conditions may be imposed. 6. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I am satisfied that the petitioner can be granted anticipatory bail. In the absence of opposition, it is not necessary for me to advert to the facts in any greater detail in this order. Appropriate conditions which shall secure the interests of a fair, efficient and expeditious investigation can, of course, be imposed. 7. In the result, this petition is allowed. Following B.A. No. 616 OF 2008 -: 4 :- directions are issued under Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C: (i) The petitioner shall appear before the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction at 11 a.m. on 18/2/08. He shall be released on regular bail on his executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate. (ii) The petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. on 19/2/08 and 20/2/08. During this period the Investigator shall be at liberty to interrogate the petitioner in custody and take all necessary steps for the proper conduct of the investigation. Thereafter the petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays and Fridays between 10 a.m. and 12 noon for a period of one month. Subsequently, he shall so make himself available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer as and when directed by the Investigating Officer in writing to do so. (iii) If the petitioner does not appear before the learned B.A. No. 616 OF 2008 -: 5 :- Magistrate as directed in clause (i), directions issued above shall thereafter stand revoked and the police shall be at liberty to arrest the petitioner and deal with him in accordance with law as if these directions were not issued at all; (iv) If the petitioner were arrested prior to his surrender on 18/2/08 as directed in clause (i) above, he shall be released on his executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- without any sureties undertaking to appear before the learned Magistrate on 18/2/08. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge B.A. No. 616 OF 2008 -: 6 :-