IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2008 / 6TH CHAITHRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 1966 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.93/08 OF THE THRISSUR TOWN EAST POLICE STATION PETITIONERS: ACCUSED ------------------------ 1. V. PARAMESWARAN, S/O.LATE VASU IYYER SIVASAKTHI, POONKUNNAM, THRISSUR. 2. K. YATHEENDRAN, S/O.KOCHAMMINI AMMA KADAMBATTU VEETIL, THRISSUR. 3. DILEEP KUMAR, S/O.BALAKRISHNAN THAIKATTIL HOUSE, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR SRI.P.GOPINATH RESPONDENTS: STATE ------------------ THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE THRISSUR TOWN EAST POLICE STATION - THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31. BY P.P. SRI. S.U. NAZAR. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- B.A. No. 1966 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of March, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioners face allegations in a crime registered alleging offences punishable, inter alia, under Secs.420 and 465 of the IPC. The crime has been registered on the basis of a private complaint filed by the de facto complainant and forwarded to the police by the learned Magistrate under Sec.156(3) of the Cr.P.C. The crux of the allegations is that the petitioners, who are builders by profession, had constructed a building and sold the same to the de facto complainant at a cost of Rs.1.25 Crores. The de facto complainant alleges that at the time when the sale was made, there was a representation that the ground floor can be used for commercial purpose. They did so start using the ground floor for commercial purpose. The local authority has now B.A. No. 1966 of 2008 -: 2 :- issued notice to the de facto complainant threatening demolition as such commercial use is impermissible. It is, in these circumstances, that the allegation of cheating is raised. Investigation is in progress. The petitioners apprehend imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are absolutely innocent. The purchaser was aware of all details. The petitioners cannot be mulcted with any culpable liability if the local authority subsequently had initiated any proceedings against the de facto complainant. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this is only a counter blast against a civil claim for the amounts due to the petitioners. The civil suit was already filed. Thereafter, the present complaint was filed against the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners, in these circumstances, submits that the petitioners do not deserve to endure the trauma of arrest and detention. They may be granted anticipatory bail. They shall co- operate with the Investigator, it is submitted. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor does not oppose the application and I am satisfied, in the facts and circumstances of B.A. No. 1966 of 2008 -: 3 :- this case, that the petitioners can be granted anticipatory bail. In the absence of opposition from the learned Public Prosecutor, it is not necessary for me to advert to the facts in any greater detail in this order. 4. In the result, this petition is 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 9/4/08. They shall be released on regular bail on their executing bonds for Rs.50,000/- each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum 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 4 p.m. on 10/4/08 and 11/4/08 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; B.A. No. 1966 of 2008 -: 4 :- (iv) If the petitioners were arrested prior to their surrender on 9/4/08 as directed in clause (i) above, they shall be released on their executing bonds for Rs.50,000/- each without any sureties undertaking to appear before the learned Magistrate on 9/4/08. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge