IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 15TH MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 138 of 2009(B) ----------------------------------- CRIME NO.500/2008 OF MALA POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED : ------------------------------ 1. M.JENNY THANKAN, AGED 40, W/O.PRADEEP KUMAR, VAIMALIYATH HOUSE, N.PARUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. PRADEEP KUMAR, AGED 47, S/O.ANIRUDHAN, VAIMALIYATH HOUSE, N.PARUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENT/STATE : -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. (CRIME NO.500 OF 2008 OF MALA POLICE STATION). PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. -------------------------------- B.A. No.138 OF 2009 -------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of February, 2009 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. According to prosecution, first petitioner sold her property to her brother's wife, who is the defacto complainant herein as per a sale deed executed on 18.01.2008. Thereafter, when the encumbrance certificate was taken, it was found that more than Rs.1Lakh was obtained by pledging the property by first petitioner and thereby, first petitioner cheated the defacto complainant in furtherance of common intention with her husband, who is the second accused. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that first petitioner and her brother were not on good terms with each other because of property dispute. First petitioner's brother insisted his mother to convey the entire property belonging to her in favour of him and this was objected by first petitioner and in spite of this, first petitioner's brother managed to get the entire property of his mother conveyed to him on 15.03.2008 as per Annexure III document. On knowing about B.A.No.138 of 2009 2 this, a complaint was lodged against the brother for forcing the mother to execute the document against her will and consent. Thereafter, the mother came to first petitioner and started residing with her. 4. First petitioner had also owed some money to her brother and it was agreed that her property could be sold to his wife by first petitioner and though first petitioner's brother knew about the mortgage of the property etc. the property was conveyed to the sister in law, who is the defacto complainant. This happened as early as on 18.01.2008. First petitioner's brother created lot of problems to the entire family and when first petitioner's sister was to be married, her father had to even approach this court for obtaining an order for police protection against him because of the problems by created him. 5. After filing a complaint by first petitioner in respect of Annexure III document by her mother to the brother first petitioner's brother forced his wife to lodge a private complaint on 01.11.2008. This was done after about 10 months of execution of the document in favour of first petitioner's brother. In such circumstances, anticipatory bail may be B.A.No.138 of 2009 3 granted, it is submitted. On hearing both sides and considering the various facts and circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that it is fit and proper that anticipatory bail is granted to petitioners. Hence, the following order is passed : Petitioners shall surrender before the Magistrate court concerned within seven days from today and they shall be released on bail on their executing bond for Rs.25,000/- each with two solvent sureties each for like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate on the following conditions : i) Petitioners shall report before the Investigating Officer as and when directed. ii) Petitioners shall not influence or intimidate any witness or commit any offence while on bail. The petition is allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE pac