IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 20TH JULY 2009 / 29TH ASHADHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 3947 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.609/2009 OF KUNNAMKULAM POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- HARIDAS, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.GANGADHARAN NAIR, KARUMATH HOUSE, POOSAPALLY, VELLITHURUTHI DESOM, CHOWANNUR VILLAGE, TALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BLAZE K.JOSE SRI.SAJEEV JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUNNAMKULAM POLICE STATION. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. -------------------------------- B.A.No.3947 of 2009 -------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of July, 2009 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.609 of 2009 of Kunnamkulam Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The crime was registered on the basis of a petition filed by the defacto complainant before the DYSP of Police, Kunnamkulam. The gist of the allegation made by the defacto complainant is the following: The defacto complainant wanted to repair the tharavadu house and for that purpose she wanted to sell an extent of 5 cents out of her 23 cents of property. Her tharavadu house is situated in that property. The petitioner made her believe that he was interested in purchasing 5 cents of land @ Rs.50,000/- per cent and drafted an agreement for her signature. The defacto complainant is an illiterate old lady. She put her thump impression in the agreement. Copy of the agreement was not handed over to her. Later, when the petitioner gave a copy, she came to know that the total extent of 23 cents is BA No.3947/2009 2 shown as a subject matter of the agreement for sale. It is also recited in the agreement that Rs.50,000/- was paid by the petitioner to the defacto complainant, while in fact no amount was paid. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has instituted a suit for return of the advance amount of Rs.50,000/- from the defacto complainant. The petitioner states that it would not be proper to file a suit for specific performance of contract as there are other co-owners who have right in the property. The suit is pending. According to the petitioner, the complaint was made only to harass him. It is submitted that if the petitioner is arrested in connection with the crime, there is every likelihood of the petitioner being harassed by the police. 5. 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 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: BA No.3947/2009 3 a) The petitioner shall appear before the 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 csl