IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 30TH JULY 2009 / 8TH SRAVANA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 4181 of 2009() --------------------------------------- CRIME NO.305/2009 OF PEERUMEDU POLICE STATION. PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------- 1. ANIMON, S/O.SURENDRAN, ANI BHAVAN, DOOR NO.331 ANAKKARA KARA, CHACKUPALLAM VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. SURENDRAN, ANIL BHAVAN, DOOR NO.331 ANAKKARA KARA, CHACKUPALLAM VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.C.DEVASIA RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------- SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PEERUMEDU POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. SRI. TEKCHAND, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No.4181 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 30th 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 petitioners are accused persons in Crime No.305/2009 of Peerumedu Police Station, Idukki. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioners is under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The defacto complainant filed a complaint before the court of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Peerumedu, which was forwarded to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, the crime was registered. 4. The case of the defacto complainant is that he purchased an item of immovable property from the accused persons for a consideration of Rs.1,75,000/- on the assurance there was no encumbrance on the property. Thereafter, in execution of a decree against the accused persons, the defacto complainant was evicted from the property by effecting delivery of the property involved in the civil case. The defacto complainant lost money and also lost the B.A. No.4181/ 2009 Page numbers property. Even a request for repaying the amount paid by him was not accepted by the accused persons. 5. The petitioners contended that they have valid title to the property and that the defacto complainant was aware of pendency of the suit. They do not, however, dispute the acceptance of consideration. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the land, which was the subject matter of the assignment deed in favour of the defacto complainant, was not taken delivery of by the decree holder in the civil suit. 6. It is not proper to decide the disputed questions of fact in an application for anticipatory bail. The allegations made in the complaint (which is now the First Information Statement) reveals the offence. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners are 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