IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2009 / 31ST ASHADHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 3982 of 2009() -------------------------------------------- CRIME NO.634/2008 OF ATTINGAL POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PETITIONER: -------------------- SIVADASAN NAIR, AGED 77 YEARS, S/O.NEELAKANDAN PILLAI, SIVODAYAM, EDAVATTOM, CHIRAKKARA P.O., KALLUVATHUKKAL VILLAGE, QUILON DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.S.CHANDRASEKHARAN RESPONDENTS : ---------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ATTINGAL POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. SRI. M.S. BREEZ, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 3982 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2009 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.634/2008 of Attingal Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 415, 418 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The defacto complainant filed a complaint before the court of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Attingal, which was forwarded to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, the crime was registered. The defacto complainant, Shwas Homes Pvt. Ltd., alleged that they entered into an agreement for sale with the accused and paid an advance amount of Rs.23,62,500/-. It is alleged that though the defacto complainant was ready to perform their part of the contract, the accused was not willing to measure the property and to B.A. No. 3982/ 2009 Page numbers produce the encumbrance certificate. He was delaying the matters. The defacto complainant later came to know that on the date of agreement for sale, the accused had no title to the property, as the property was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act and the defacto complainant had received Land Acquisition Compensation. 4. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence and the allegations levelled against the defacto complainant, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm