IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2009 / 17TH ASHADHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 3688 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.511/2009 OF PUNALUR POLICE STATION PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED ------------------------------------------ RAHIM, S/O.PAREETHUKUNJU, MALIKA VEEDU, PUNALUR VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PUNALUR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------ B.A.No.3688 of 2009 ------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of July, 2009 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the second accused in Crime No.511 of 2009 of Punalur Police Station. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the first accused agreed to sell his property to the petitioner (second accused). Later, accused Nos.1 and 2 together entered into an agreement with the defacto complainant (Annexure III) to sell the property to the defacto complainant. After the execution of the agreement, the first accused went abroad. Since the time for completion of the transaction was getting expired, the petitioner extended the period for completing the transaction. Thereafter, the first accused was reluctant to execute the sale deed. The petitioner was all through out ready to do whatever that was necessary for execution of the sale deed in favour of the defacto complainant. A suit was filed by the defacto complainant before the civil court for specific performance of the agreement for sale. The petitioner is one of the defendants in the suit wherein the petitioner filed an affidavit stating his readiness and BA No.3688/2009 2 willingness to execute the necessary document. The suit is still pending. While so, the defacto complainant filed a private complaint before the Magistrate's court which was forwarded to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, the crime was registered. 4. 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 him on bail on his executing bond for Rs.25,000/- 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) 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 csl