IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT SATURDAY, THE 29TH MARCH 2008 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 1857 of 2008() ----------------------------- CR NO. 82/08 OF CHALAKUDY POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1: ----------------------------------------- JAISON THOMAS, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O. THOMAS, MANJALY HOUSE, VENGOOR, ANGAMALY VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.T.D.ROBIN SRI.R.ANUP RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, CHALAKUDY POLICE STATION (CRIME 82/2008). BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/03/2008, A/W. 1922 OF 2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- B.A. Nos. 1857 & 1922 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of March, 2008 ORDER Applications for anticipatory bail. The petitioners are accused 1 and 3. They face allegations in a crime registered alleging offences punishable, inter alia, under Sec.420 of the IPC. Altogether, there are 3 accused persons. The crime has been registered on the basis of a private complaint filed before the learned Magistrate and referred to the police by the learned Magistrate under Sec.156(3) of the Cr.P.C. To put it in a nutshell, the allegation is that the 2nd accused had agreed to sell a property of his to the 1st accused. Later, with the knowledge of A1, A2 and the de facto complainant, the 1st accused had agreed to sell the property to the de facto complainant and had received an amount of Rs.5 lakhs as advance. Subsequently, the 2nd accused, it is alleged, in B.A. Nos. 1857 & 1922 of 2008 -: 2 :- pursuance of a conspiracy between accused 1 to 3, had sold the very same property to accused 1 and 3. The de facto complainant alleges that accused 1 to 3 had entered into a prior conspiracy to defeat the rights of the de facto complainant and to induce him to part with money. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the allegations, even if accepted in toto, can only amount to breach of a civil obligation and cannot, at any rate, be said to amount to any culpable offences. In any view of the matter, the petitioners do not deserve to endure the trauma of arrest and detention. They may be granted anticipatory bail. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor does not oppose the prayer for anticipatory bail and I am satisfied, in the facts and circumstances of this case to which I have already made a brief reference above, that the petitioners are entitled to grant of anticipatory bail. 4. In the result, these petitions are allowed. Following directions are issued under Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C: (i) The petitioners shall appear before the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction at 11 a.m. on 4/4/08. They shall be released on regular bail on their executing bonds for Rs.25,000/- each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum B.A. Nos. 1857 & 1922 of 2008 -: 3 :- to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate. (ii) The petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. on 5/4/08 and thereafter as and when directed by the Investigating Officer in writing to do so. (iii) If the petitioners do 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 petitioners and deal with them in accordance with law as if these directions were not issued at all. (iv) If the petitioners were arrested prior to their surrender on 4/4/08 as directed in clause (i) above, they shall be released on their executing bonds for Rs.25,000/- each without any sureties undertaking to appear before the learned Magistrate on 4/4/08. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge B.A. Nos. 1857 & 1922 of 2008 -: 4 :-