IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 9207 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.549/2011 OF PAVARATTY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER : ACCUSED ------------------------------ SATHEESH, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.GOPALAN, VENKITANGU HOUSE, EDAKALATHUR P.O THRISSUR DIST. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTING THE S.I.OF POLICE PAVARATTY POLICE STATION. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.K.RAJEEV THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A.No.9207 of 2011 --------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of November, 2011 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.549 of 2011 of Pavaratty Police Station, Thrissur District. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The F.I.R. was registered on 12.8.2011. The de facto complainant, a woman belonging to Scheduled Caste, stated before the police in her petition that for purchasing land, she was granted ` 45,000/- from the District Panchayath. ` 75,000/- was granted for construction of the house, out of which ` 70,000/- was issued. According to the de facto complainant, the petitioner offered to construct a house for the de facto complainant for a sum of ` 1,10,000/-. BA 9207/11 2 The sum of ` 70,000/- received from the Panchayath was given to the petitioner. Thereafter, ` 40,000/- was paid in three instalments. However, the petitioner did not commence construction. He did not pay pack the amount also. 4. According to the petitioner, a sum of ` 11,000/- and a cart were taken by the husband of the de facto complainant from the petitioner and they were not returned. The petitioner filed O.S.No.2144 of 2011 before the Munsiff's Court, Thrissur, against the husband of the de facto complainant. That suit is pending. The petitioner, after getting the details from the Panchayath under the Right to Information Act, filed a petition dated 25.6.2011 before the Secretary of the District Panchayath stating that amounts were fraudulently obtained by the de facto complainant from the Panchayath and it was misrepresented before the Panchayath that a major portion of the work was over. However, not even the foundation stone was laid. This petition was enquired into by the Panchayath and the de facto complainant was directed to repay the amount granted by the Panchayath. BA 9207/11 3 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence and other circumstances, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. There will be a direction that in the event of arrest of the petitioner, the officer in charge of the police station shall release him on bail on his executing bond for ` 10,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions: A) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required ; B) The petitioner shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence ; C) The petitioner shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail; D) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to be cancelled. The Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated above. K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE csl