IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2008 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6120 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.296/2008 OF KAZHAKOOTTAM POLICE STATION PETITIONERS : ACCUSED NOS.1 AND 2 ------------------------------------------------------ 1. G.SASSI, S/O.GANGADHARAN VAYDIAR, 71 YEARS, MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S.COMMANDER AGENCIES PVT.LTD., VAZHUTHACAUD, TRIVANDRUM 2. SAJITH SASSI, S/O.G.SASSI, 35 YEARS DIRECTOR, M/S.COMMANDER AGENCIES PVT.LTD., VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM (SR.) FOR ADDL.R2 SRI.S.SHARAN FOR ADDL.R2 THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.6120 of 2008 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st December, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 420, 427 and 34 IPC. According to prosecution, petitioners entered into an agreement with the defacto complainant, who is the owner of a cinema theater for completing the interior decoration work and after receiving the payment, petitioners did not complete the work as agreed and thereby cheated the defacto complainant. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the dispute is purely civil in nature with respect to the work done and to be done by the contractor as per an agreement. There is some dispute regarding the money advanced, which according to petitioner is not sufficient to carry out the additional work as directed to be executed. But, the defacto complainant was pressurising the petitioner to get the work done through the Circle Inspector of Police. Since the police started harassing, he was forced to file writ petition before this Court as W.P.(C) BA No.6120 /2008 2 No.26466/2008 against police harassment. But, during pendency of the petition, it was reported that the present crime was registered and hence, this Court did not interfere. It was only because the writ petition was filed that the crime was registered even though it is only a civil dispute, it is submitted. 4. Learned counsel for petitioners also pointed out that the matter was referred to the Lok Adalath by this Court and an agreement was entered into between the parties as per which the matter was to be referred to a qualified Engineer agreeable to both parties who will go into the entire gamut of the case by conducting local inspection and will assess the quantum of work done by the petitioners. It was also agreed that if the Engineer finds any deficiency in quality and extend of work executed by the petitioners in terms of the original agreement, petitioners will compensate the owner to that extent. On the other hand, if the petitioners have executed work over and above the amount received by them, owner will indemnify them. It was also agreed that entire exercise will be completed by the Engineer within one month from the date of his appointment and the expenses will be borne equally by the parties. This agreement was entered into on 20.10.2008 as seen from the endorsement made by the Lok BA No.6120 /2008 3 Adalath and the records were returned to this Court. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that the defacto complainant did not co-operate with the petitioner for getting an Engineer appointed. Therefore, work could not be assessed. In the above circumstances, petitioners may be granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 5. Learned public prosecutor submitted that though the money was received from the defacto complainant, as per the allegations, petitioners did not complete the work as agreed and thereby, cheated the defacto complainant. Learned counsel for the defacto complainant submitted that the work was not done by the petitioners as per original agreement though huge amount was advanced to the petitioners. Thereby, defacto complainant sustained huge loss. This is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted by learned counsel for the defacto complainant. 6. On hearing both sides, and considering the contentions raised, particularly on noting the endorsement by Lok Adalath made on 20.10.2008, I find that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners on conditions and hence, the following order is passed: BA No.6120 /2008 4 Petitioners shall surrender before the Magistrate Court concerned 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 and make themselves available for interrogation. (ii) Petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or commit any offence while on bail. (iii) Petitioners shall take steps to see that the matter is referred to the Engineer, as agreed before the Lok Adalath on 20.10.2008 within one month from today. If the defacto complainant does not co-operate, it can be brought to the notice of learned Magistrate. The petition is allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE csl