IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 19TH OCTOBER 2009 / 27TH ASWINA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 5946 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.30/2009 OF KUDIYANMALA POLICE STATION PETITIONERS/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- 1. K.V.KURIAKOSE @ KURIAN,S/O. VARKEY, AGED 50 YEARS, KUZHIVELIPARAMBIL HOUSE, NADUVIL AMSOM DESOM, PULIKURUMBA P.O. KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. KAVUMPURATH JAIN, W/O. DOMINIC, AGED 46 YEARS, PALAKULANGARA, TALIPARAMBA AMSOM DESOM, TALIPARAMBA P.O. KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA (S.I OF POLICE, KUDIYANMALA POLICE STATION, CRIME NO.30/2009) REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF EKRALA,ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.5946 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of October, 2009 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.30 of 2009 of Kudiyanmala Police Station. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioners is under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The defacto complainant filed a complaint before the court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Taliparamba which was forwarded to the police under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, the crime was registered. 4. The case of the defacto complainant is that the first accused agreed to sell an item of immovable property to him for a consideration fixed and an advance was also paid. Later, instead of transferring the property to the defacto complainant, the first accused transferred the property to the second accused BA No.5946/2009 2 and thus, they committed the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that even if all the allegations are taken as true, it would be a ground for a civil action. In fact, the defacto complainant has filed O.S.No.83 of 2009 against the petitioners before the Sub Court, Payyannur for specific performance of the agreement for sale. The suit is pending. 6. 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 petitioners. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the petitioners, the officer in charge of the police station shall release them on bail on their executing bond for Rs.15,000/- each with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions: a) The petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; b) The petitioners shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence; BA No.5946/2009 3 c) The petitioners 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