IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 24TH MAY 2010 / 3RD JYAISHTA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 2705 of 2010() ----------------------------- (CRIME No.429/2010 OF VARKALA POLICE STATION, PENDING BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, VARKALA) PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 6 ----------------------------------------------- 1. NOUSHAD, S/O. MUHAMMEDU KUNJU, S/O. MUHAMMED KUNJU, SUBAIDU MANZIL, NADYAMADATHIL VEEDU, MUDUPHALAM DESOM, CHAMMARUTHI VILLAGE. 2. MUHAMMED, SUBAIDU MANZIL, NADYAMADATHIL VEEDU, MUDUPHALAM DESOM,CHAMMARUTHI VILLAGE. 3. AFEERA BEEVI, SUBAIDU MANZIL, NADYAMADATHIL VEEDU, MUDUPHALAM DESOM,CHAMMARUTHI VILLAGE. 4. SUMINA, SUBAIDU MANZIL, NADYAMADATHIL VEEDU, MUDUPHALAM DESOM,CHAMMARUTHI VILLAGE. 5. SUBAIDA BEEVI, SUBAIDU MANZIL, NADYAMADATHIL VEEDU, MUDUPHALAM DESOM,CHAMMARUTHI VILLAGE. 6. SOUMYA, SUBAIDU MANZIL, NADYAMADATHIL VEEDU, MUDUPHALAM DESOM,CHAMMARUTHI VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.R.GOPAN RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANTS --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VARKALA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J ---------------------- B.A.No.2705 OF 2010 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of May, 2010 O R D E R This is a petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections420 and 34 IPC. According to defacto complainant, about Rs.24 lakhs was borrowed by petitioner (first accused) from him and a promissory note was executed. First accused also executed promissory note for ensuring payment of amount. But amount was not paid. All accused committed cheating in furtherance of common intention The transaction was in respect of sale of a property. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that there was a transaction between the parties and it is of a civil nature, From the complaint itself, it is clear that a promissory note was executed for repayment of the borrowed amount. But the amount was not repaid and petitioners told defacto complainant that amount will be paid when he gets the amount or else she was asked to seek legal action against petitioners. It is also submitted that because of the pendancy of this petition police is harassing, at the instance of defacto complainant. A petition was hence filed before this court for police protection. A direction was B.A. No.2705/10 2 issued by this court for police protection and Superintendent of Police and Sub Inspector of police were directed to provide adequate protection to the lives of petitioner from defacto complainant and others. 4. On hearing both side, it appears that there is a dispute in respect of payment of money and return. Hence the following order is passed: Petitioner shall surrender before the Magistrate court concerned, and they shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs. 25,000/- with two solvent securities each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate, on the following conditions : i) Petitioner shall co-operate with investigation and report before the investigating officer as and when directed. ii) Petitioner shall not influence or intimidate any witness or tamper with evidence. This petition is allowed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Sou.