IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 29TH JUNE 2009 / 8TH ASHADHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 3238 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.316/2009 OF ANTHIKKAD POLICE STATION. APPLICANT/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------- P.G.BIJU, S/O.GEORGE PORATHUR THOTTUNGAL HOUSE P.O.PERINGOTTUKARA, THANNIAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING THE S.I.OF ANTHIKKAD POLICE STATION. *2. VINCENT, AGED 53, S/O. ANTHONI, KURUTHUKULANGARA, PUTHENPEEDIKA DESOM, ANTHIKAD VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. (* THE ADDL. 2ND RESPONDENT IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN CRL. M.APPL. NO.3424/2009 DATED 29/06/2009) SRI. M.S. BREEZ, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJIT FOR ADDL.R2 THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 3238 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 29th day of June, 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.316/2009 of Anthikkad Police Station, Thrissur. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The defacto complainant filed a complaint before the court of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II, Thrissur, which was forwarded to the police under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and a crime was registered accordingly. 4. There was an agreement for sale (Annexure A) executed between the defacto complainant and his son on the one hand and the accused on the other hand, by which the accused agreed to purchase the property belonging to the defacto complainant and his son. Annexure A agreement was executed on 27/03/2008. An advance of Rs.8,00,000/- was also paid. The endorsement on the agreement shows that the period B.A. No. 3238 /2009 Page numbers for performance of the agreement was extended on 26/12/2008 and on that day, a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- was paid by the accused to the complainant. The case of the defacto complainant is that though the endorsement for extension of time for specific performance is true, the endorsement pertaining to payment of Rs.25,00,000/- is not genuine. 5. The petitioner contends that notice dated 13/03/2009 was issued by the accused to the defacto complainant, which was received by the latter on 17/03/2009. It is submitted that though mention was made about the payment of Rs.25,00,000/- in that notice, there was no reply. Before institution of the suit of specific performance, a notice was issued on behalf of the petitioner (accused) on 26/03/2009. It is stated that there was no reply to that notice. The petitioner filed O.S. No.437/2009 before the Sub Court, Thrissur for specific performance of Annexure A1 agreement for sale. The suit is pending. 6. The petitioner submits that after the suit was filed, the defacto complainant filed a complaint before the court on 4/05/2009, which was forwarded to the police as mentioned B.A. No. 3238 /2009 Page numbers above. According to the petitioner, the sequence of events would clearly indicate that criminal law was set in motion without any justification in respect of a civil dispute between the parties. It is also submitted that if the police were to investigate into complicated questions of civil dispute, it would cause serious prejudice to the petitioner. The petitioner also apprehends arrest and alleges that there would be that there would be consequent harassment and humiliation. 7. I heard the learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant as well. 8. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that this is a fit case where 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 B.A. No. 3238 /2009 Page numbers 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 scm