IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JANUARY 2008 / 26TH POUSHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 222 of 2008() ---------------------------- CRIME530/07 OF PERAMANGALAM POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED --------------------------------------- N.SREEDHAR, S/O NANU, MANIMANGALAM HOUSE, VELAPPAYA P.O., THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.RAVISANKAR RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADV.SRI.S.U.NAZER THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` B.A. No. 222 OF 2008 ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 16th day of January, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioner is the 1st accused. He faces allegations in a crime registered alleging offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 420 IPC. The crux of the allegations against the petitioner is that he induced the de facto complainant to enter into an agreement for purchase of an item of property. Advance was received from the de facto complainant, a woman, towards the price of this land. It was assured that the 1st accused has an agreement with the real owner for sale of the property and that the sale can be effected in the name of the de facto complainant. 2. The allegation now is that the accused persons, instead of selling the property to the de facto complainant, sold it to another person and the original owner accepted the request of the accused persons to sell the property to such transferee. BA.222/08 : 2 : 3. Crime has been registered. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is only breach of a civil liability to abide by the obligations under an agreement of sale. The petitioner was not the owner of the property. The alleged conduct of the real owner transferring the property to another person may expose the real owner to liability in civil law and the petitioner shall take necessary steps in that regard. At any rate, no culpable liability can be inferred, contends the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor has brought to my notice that the statement of the original title holder asserts that there was an agreement with the 1st accused and that the property was sold only to the nominee of the 1st accused and not to anyone else of the choice of the real owner. 6. I have considered the rival contentions. Relevant portions in the case diary have been perused by me. I am BA.222/08 : 3 : satisfied that there are no features in this case which would justify the invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. This, I agree with the learned Public Prosecutor, is a fit case where the petitioner must appear before the investigating officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the normal and ordinary course. 7. In the result, this petition is dismissed. Needless to say, if the petitioner surrenders before the investigating officer or the learned Magistrate and applies for bail, after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate must proceed to pass appropriate orders on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) aks