IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 3RD OCTOBER 2011 / 11TH ASWINA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 7786 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRMP.838/2011 of DISTRICT COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA CRIME NO.712/2011 OF THIRUVALLA POLICE STATION PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT .................... PETITIONER : ACCUSED NO.2 : -------------------------------- V.K. SASEENDRAN, ANIL VILASAM, ANJALITHANAM.P.O, KUNNANTHANAM, MALLAPPALLY, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI. K.SHAJI SRI.SAJJU.S RESPONDENTS : STATE -------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIRUVALLA POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.MANU THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Bail Appln.No.7786 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 03rd day of October, 2011 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Petitioner is accused No.2 in Crime No.712 of 2011 of Thiruvalla Police Station, Pathanamthitta District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 406, 420 and 379 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is the following:- Accused No.1 is the owner of a property. He entered into an agreement with the de facto complainant whereby the de facto complainant agreed to construct a house for accused No.1 in the property. Accused No.2 is the engineer, who undertook the construction. The allegation is that out of the amount paid to the de facto complainant by accused No.1, a portion of the same was diverted by accused No.2. It is also alleged that later accused No.1 entered into an agreement with accused No.2 avoiding the de facto Bail Appln.No.7786/2011 : 2 : complainant. It is also alleged that some of the articles belonging to the de facto complainant were stolen by accused Nos.1 and 2. 4. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offences 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 the arrest of the petitioner, the officer in charge of the police station shall release him on bail on his executing bond for `10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) 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. Bail Appln.No.7786/2011 : 3 : 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 skj True copy P.A. to Judge