IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2010 / 19TH PHALGUNA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 890 of 2010() -------------------------------- CRIME NO. 762/2009 OF VIZHINJAM POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED : ----------------------------------- NALINI, D/O.RAMAN, ERATTATHERUVU, BALARAMAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.GOPAN RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS : ------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VIZHINJAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY SRI. M.S. BREEZ PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/03/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 890 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 10th day of March, 2010 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.2 in Crime No.762/2009 of Vizhinjam Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 420 and 468 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Accused No.1 is the husband of accused No.2. The prosecution case is that on 18.08.2008, accused Nos.1 and 2 entered into an agreement for sale with the de facto complainant. The former agreed to sell an item of immovable property to the de facto complainant. It is alleged that before entering into the agreement dated 18.08.2008, the property was already sold by accused No.1 on 31.05.2008 to a stranger. The allegation is that by agreeing to sell the land which was already sold to another person, the accused persons cheated the de facto complainant. B.A. No. 890 /2010 2 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not the owner of the land at all and therefore, the case put forward against her is not true. The counsel also submitted that accused No.1 was arrested and he was released on bail. The counsel pointed out that the de facto complainant had filed a complaint before the Magistrate's Court and it was forwarded to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is submitted that only to harass the petitioner and thereby to gain advantage, she has been made an accused. 5. 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 petitioner. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the petitioner, the officer in charge of the police station shall release her on bail on her executing bond for Rs.15,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions: A) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; B.A. No. 890 /2010 3 B) The petitioner shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence. C) The petitioner 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 ln