IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2009 / 16TH ASHADHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 3654 of 2009() --------------------------------------- CRIME NO. 487/2009 OF PALLURUTHY POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------- JOSEPH SHIBU, S/O.AVARACHAN, AGED 33 YEARS, KOCHERIYIL HOUSE, KUMBALANGI, KOCHI. BY ADV. SRI.P.T.JOSE RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. SRI. M.S. BREEZ, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 3654 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 7th 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 petitioner is the accused in Crime No.487/2009 of Palluruthy Police Station, Ernakulam. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 406, 417 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The defacto complainant filed a complaint before the court of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class -II, Kochi, 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 gist of the allegations made by the defacto complainant is as follows: She was working abroad. After she came back to India, she found that her family property was managed by one Thomas Peter Kocheril. The accused promised help to the defacto complainant to manage her family property. With the help of the accused, she purchased B.A. No. 3654 / 2009 Page numbers the property from her sisters as per three sale deeds dated 6/01/2004. For execution of the Sale deeds, the accused collected a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the defacto complainant. It is further alleged that the original title deeds were received by the accused from the defacto complainant under the pretext that those documents are necessary for effecting the mutation. Later, it was revealed that the 3rd parties are in possession of the properties and that on enquiry, the defacto complainant came to know that those persons are claiming to be in possession stating that the accused put them in possession of the property after collecting money. The accused has not returned the documents so far. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the defacto complainant had filed Annexure A3 petition against the accused before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, which was not entertained as evidenced by Annexure A5 order dated 6/05/2009. Due to that enmity, the present complaint was filed by the defacto complainant. It is also stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a Will was executed by the owner B.A. No. 3654 / 2009 Page numbers of the property (property purchased by the defacto complainant) in favour of Kocheril Thomas Peter and he had rights in the property. The defacto complainant purchased the property from the persons who have no title. The submission made by the counsel for the petitioner is that this case is essentially a matter of civil dispute and that the petitioner who is a fisherman is implicated in the case on a misunderstanding. 6. 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 for a period of one month 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 report before the investigating officer between 9 A.M and 11 A.M. on all Mondays, till the final report is filed or until further orders; B) The petitioner shall appear before the B.A. No. 3654 / 2009 Page numbers investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; C) The petitioner shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence. D) The petitioner shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail. E) On the expiry of the period mentioned above, the petitioner shall surrender before the Magistrate concerned and seek regular bail or even before that period. F) 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