IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH JULY 2008 / 8TH SRAVANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 4560 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRMP.1864/2008 IN CRIME NO.187/08 OF ALAPPUZHA NORTH POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER : ACCUSED ----------------- SEBASTIAN, S/O.VARGHESE, THOTTATHIL HOUSE, THIRUMALA WARD ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.E.RAFEEK SRI.GOKUL DAS V.V.H. RESPONDENT: STATE ------------- THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALAPPUZHA NORTH POLICE STATION, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. -------------------------------------- Bail Application No.4560 of 2008 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of July, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. According to the prosecution, an agreement was executed by the petitioner in favour of defacto complainant, on receiving Rs.1 lakh, in respect of sale of his Maruti car. As per the agreement, petitioner shall pay the amount due as per hire purchase agreement in instalments but, he defaulted the payment and the vehicle was taken possession by the financier. Thereby, he had cheated the defacto complainant and also misappropriated the amount which is given. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the defacto complainant is a financier from whom, petitioner borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as loan. At that time, he had handed over a blank cheque and signed papers to the defacto complainant, since he could not pay the amount. Hence, BA No.4560/08 2 his car was taken away by the defacto complainant. He also misused the blank paper given to him to fabricate an agreement. Form No.20 and 30 were not filled up by the petitioner and that itself will establish that there was no transfer of the vehicle, as per law. The defacto complainant was using the vehicle illegally but, later, he defaulted payment of the instalments to the financier with whom the vehicle was hypothecated and the car was taken possession by the financier, it is submitted. 4. Thereafter, the defacto complainant misused the blank cheque handed over to him and lodged a complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act alleging that Rs.2,00,000/- was borrowed by the petitioner from him. The relevant dates will establish that while the balance amount towards alleged purchase of car is due to the petitioner, he had allegedly borrowed Rs.2 lakhs from the complainant, if the allegations in the complaint are accepted. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, it is highly unbelievable that when amounts are due from the defacto complainant to the petitioner, the petitioner would borrow Rs.2,00,000/- even before the alleged sale is completed and the BA No.4560/08 3 whole amount is paid off. Both the cases are falsely fabricated, using the blank paper and cheque handed over by the petitioner, it is submitted. The alleged transaction relating to the vehicle occurred in the year 2006 and the complaint is lodged only in 2008. In between in 2007, the complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act was filed. Petitioner has produced documents such as notice, reply notice etc. a copy of the complaint etc. in support of his arguments. 5. Learned public prosecutor submitted that the case diary will reveal that the petitioner has committed the offence as alleged and it is also to be noted that petitioner had informed the financier that the vehicle was not in his possession. Therefore, it cannot be said that the agreement is a fabricated one, it is submitted. 6. On hearing both sides, I find that it is only fit and proper to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Hence, petitioner is granted anticipatory bail and the following order is passed: (1) Petitioner shall surrender before the BA No.4560/08 4 Investigating Officer within one week from the date of this order and make himself available for interrogation. (2) Thereafter, in the event of his arrest, if any, he shall be released on bail on his executing bond for Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer on condition that he will co- operate with the investigation and report before the Investigating Officer as and when directed. The petition is allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE csl