IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2008 / 15TH SRAVANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 4781 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.345/08 OF WADAKKEKAD POLICE STATION PETITIONER : ACCUSED ------------------------ ABBAS HASSAN KUTTY, AGED 46, S/O. HASSAN KUTTY, MANAGING DIRECTOR, HOTEL CALICUT GREEN CASTLE (P) LIMITED, 11/243, POST VENGANELLOOR, CHELAKKARA, THRISSUR-680 586. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.NAVAS RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, WADAKKEKAD POLICE STATION, THRISSUR. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 4781 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th August, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, the petitioner executed a document in favour of the de facto complainant and the latter advanced Rs.10 lakhs to the petitioner in connection with the sale of a property. The property was agreed to be sold by the petitioner in favour of the de facto complainant making him believe that the property belongs to the petitioner. But, later it was understood that a fraud was played on him and the property did not belong to him. The money paid was not repaid and hence a complaint was filed. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that this is absolutely false case. It is difficult to believe that the de facto complainant will readily hand over a huge amount like Rs.10 lakhs to the petitioner without ascertaining whether the petitioner is the owner of the property or not. According to learned counsel for petitioner, there was another transaction between the petitioner and the de facto complainant. The de facto complainant was engaged by the petitioner for a construction work but there was some difference of opinion in relation to that. Thereafter, the matter BA.4781/08 2 was settled between the parties and a cheque for Rs.5 lakhs was given to the de facto complainant originally. Later, the said cheque was taken back by the petitioner by giving Rs.4 lakhs in cash and Rs.1,00,000/- by way of a cheque. Receipt was also issued by the de facto complainant to the petitioner. The said documents are produced as Annexures A3 and A4. Those refer to the dates and details of the cheques. Thereafter, de facto complainant filed a complaint making false allegation. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that as per the instructions, the de facto complainant had some transaction with the petitioner and a cheque for Rs.3 lakhs was issued to him by way of mediation, but the cheque bounced. Thereafter, the petitioner did not give any money. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner may be directed to appear before the investigating officer and subject himself for custodial interrogation and subject to that , he has no objection in granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner. On hearing both sides, I find that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner on conditions. Hence, the following order is passed: BA.4781/08 3 i) Petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer within seven days from today and subject himself for interrogation. ii) Thereafter, if the petitioner is arrested, he shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer, on condition that he will appear before the investigating officer as and when directed and co-operate with the investigation. Petition is allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.