IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2010 / 25TH ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3582 of 2010() --------------------------------------- CRIME NO. NOT KNOW TO THE PETITINER NJARAKKAL POLICE STATION ............. PETITIONER ------------------------------ C.K.JAGADEESAN, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.KUMARAN, OLIPARAMBIL HOUSE RSAC ROAD, VYTTILA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.RATHEESH RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NARAKKAL POLICE STATION. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------ B.A. No. 3582 of 2010 ----------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of July, 2010 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, de facto complainant purchased a property from the first and second accused in the year 2005. But the third accused had obtained a decree fraudulently from the Civil Court stating that the property was sold by the first and second accused to the third accused, as early as in the year 1999. All the accused, thereby, committed cheating. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the landlord declined to assign a property to the third accused, who is the petitioner herein. Petitioner approached the Sub Court and obtained a decree. Subsequently, the landlord assigned a portion of the property to the de facto complainant. Now de facto complainant filed a complaint stating that petitioner has cheated her and hence anticipatory bail may be granted, it is submitted. B.A. No. 3582 / 2010 2 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that first and second accused had entered into an agreement for sale in favour of the third accused in the year 1999 and this fact was suppressed from de facto complainant and the latter was persuaded to purchase the property in the year 2005. Later, a suit was filed by the third accused claiming right over the property. This is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides, I find that petitioner has not made out any ground to grant anticipatory bail. The submission of the petitioner's counsel are as such recorded in this order. On those submissions, anticipatory bail cannot be granted. Considering the nature of the allegations made, I find that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Petition is dismissed. B.A. No. 3582 / 2010 3 K. HEMA, JUDGE ln