IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2008 / 8TH MAGHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 490 of 2008() ---------------------------- CRIME NO. IS NOT KNOWN : PETITIONER --------------------------- K.N.RAMACHANDRAN, AGED 52, 8/2124, KODIYEDATH HOUSE, NEW ROAD, MATTANCHERRY, KOCHI-682 003. BY ADV. SRI.N.K.MOHANLAL RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MULANTHURUTHY POLICE STATION, PANANGAD. 2. ASSISTANT S.I. OF POLICE, PANANGAD POLICE STATION. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ B.A.No.490 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of January, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioner faces allegations in a crime registered under Section 420 I.P.C. The crime in turn is registered on the basis of a private complaint filed by the defacto complainant before the Magistrate and which is referred by the learned Magistrate to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The crux of the allegations against the petitioner is that he had received an advance amount of Rs.17.5. lakhs from the defacto complainant agreeing to sell an item of property belonging to him to the defacto complainant. But it was not revealed that there were 2 earlier bank loans in respect of the same property and the amount availed was Rs.10 lakhs. It was also not revealed that earlier there had been agreements for sale of the same property to the other persons also. Suppressing earlier agreements, this agreement was entered into and the defacto complainant was induced to part with an amount of Rs.17.5 lakhs. This, in a nut shell, is the allegation raised in the private complaint. B.A.No.490 of 2008 2 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent. According to him, it was not a real transaction for sale of the property at all. An amount was advanced by the defacto complainant and to secure such amount the said agreement was entered. Even going by the agreement, there was no stipulation or statement regarding any prior liability. Only to vex and harass the petitioner and to coerce him to accept the terms of the defacto complainant, such allegations are being raised against the petitioner. In fact, the total consideration payable under the agreement is sufficient to discharge the liability to the banks. The claims of persons, with whom previous agreements for sale had been executed, had all been settled and there is no such controversy between them, submits the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. Notwithstanding the opposition, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that the petitioner can be granted anticipatory bail. In coming to this conclusion I take note of the specific submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner which is accepted without demur by the learned Public Prosecutor that there is no specific statement/suppression of any relevant and B.A.No.490 of 2008 3 controversial facts in the agreement for sale. Crime number is not stated in the bail application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that Crime 52 of 2008 of Panangad Police station has been registered against the petitioner. 4. In the result, the Bail Application is, allowed. The following directions are issued under Section 438 Cr.P.C. i) The petitioner shall appear before the learned Magistrate at 11 a.m on 04.02.2008. He shall be enlarged on regular bail on his executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) 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 3 p.m on 05.01.2008 and 06.01.2008. During this period, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to interrogate the petitioners in custody and take all necessary steps the proper conduct of the investigation. Thereafter the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer between 10 a.m and 12 noon on all Mondays and Fridays for a period of one month and subsequently as and when directed by the Investigating Officer in writing to do so; B.A.No.490 of 2008 4 iii) If the petitioner does not appear before the learned 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 those directions were not issued at all; iv) If the petitioner were arrested prior to his surrender on 04.02.08 as directed in clause (1) above, he shall be released from custody on his executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) without any sureties undertaking to appear before the learned Magistrate on 04.02.08. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-