IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2010 / 1ST SRAVANA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 4053 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.925/2010 OF ERNAKULAM NORTH POLICE STATION (S): PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.4 ------------------------------------------- SUANCE P.P. @ KUNJUMON AGED 43 YEARS, S/O. PURUSHAN, RESIDING AT PANDARAPARAMBIL HOUSE, EDAKOCHI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GEO PAUL SRI.SANU MATHEW SRI.C.R.PRAMOD SRI.NOEL JOSEPH SRI.M.B.SANDEEP SMT.P.T.RAZEENA RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY S.I. OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM NORTH POICE STATION, BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEK CHAND. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ---------------------------------------------- Bail Application No.4053 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 23rd July, 2010. O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 406, 420, 384 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 17 of the Kerala Money Lenders Act. According to prosecution, defacto complainant's husband was in need of money. The first accused approached him and told him that the money could be arranged, if he was prepared to sell property to the third accused. The defacto complainant 's husband decided to sell his property to the third accused for Rs.30 lakhs. The understanding was that once the money is paid back, the property will be re-conveyed. 3. Thereafter, the assignment deed was executed in favour of third accused. On execution of the sale deed, third accused handed over Rs.25 lakhs to the first accused, but third accused paid only Rs.10 lakhs to the defacto complainant's husband. On enquiries made, he was assured that the amount would be paid in two instalments. Since the money was not received, a complaint was lodged before the police. The second BA NO. 4053/10 2 accused then told defacto complainant that if Rs.2 lakhs could be given as bribe to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, the entire dispute could be settled. The second accused stood as a mediator to settle the dispute. Petitioner (4th accused) is the real estate broker, who arranged for sale of the property. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is only a property broker. He did not receive any money from any person in the transaction. He only arranged for sale of the property. Petitioner's name will not find a place anywhere in the records at the early stage of investigation. There is absolutely no whisper in the first information statement, regarding his involvement in money dealings and he did not commit any cheating, it is submitted. According to petitioner, the defacto complainant was questioned subsequently and in her subsequent statement also, nothing is stated against petitioner. 5. The defacto complainant had filed a petition before the Inspector General of Police making allegations of bribery against the Assistant Commissioner of Police, who allegedly intervened in the dispute. In the said complaint also, there is no allegation against petitioner. The defacto complainant filed a writ BA NO. 4053/10 3 petition before this court for a direction to conduct a proper investigation into the complaint filed by her. In the said writ petition also, petitioner's name is not mentioned. But, now, at the belated stage, petitioner is sought to be arrested. 6. During the pendency of this petition, petitioner was prepared to co-operate with the investigation and explain his innocence to the Investigating Officer. This court directed the petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer and he appeared. The petitioner was questioned and his statement was recorded. In such circumstances, petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that third accused was granted anticipatory bail. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioner reported before the Investigating Officer as directed and his statement was recorded. Petitioner appears to be a property broker, who had arranged for sale of the property. As per the written instructions, petitioner's custodial interrogation is necessary, since Rs.15 lakhs is allegedly misappropriated by first accused and it could not so far be recovered. It is suspected that BA NO. 4053/10 4 the other accused also would have joined in the misappropriation of the amount, it is submitted. 8. On hearing both sides and on going through the case diary, I am satisfied that petitioner's role is very limited in the transaction and hence, anticipatory bail can be granted. Petitioner was implicated only at a belated stage by defacto complainant's husband, stating that he was also present at the time when the amount was paid etc. Third accused is granted anticipatory bail. However, police must have an opportunity to interrogate petitioner before granting bail. Taking note of all the facts into consideration, I pass the following order : (1) Petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within 15 days from today and co-operate with the investigation. (2) In case 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 the following conditions : (i) He shall report before the BA NO. 4053/10 5 Investigating Officer on alternate Mondays between 10 a.m. and 1 p.m. until further orders. (ii) Petitioner shall not influence or intimidate any witness or tamper with evidence. (3) This order will be in force only for a period of 20 days from today. In the meantime, whether the petitioner is arrested or not, he shall seek regular bail from the court concerned, in accordance with law. Petition is allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. tgs