IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 16TH OCTOBER 2008 / 24TH ASWINA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6059 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.142/2007 OF NATTUKAL POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- K.G.BABU S/O.GOPALAN NAIR (LATE) AGED 42 YEARS POURNAMI, ARIYOOR MANNARKAD BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT --------------- STATE OF KERALA-REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NATTUKAL POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------------------------- B.A.No.6059 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of October, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under Section 420 IPC. According to prosecution, petitioner entered into an agreement with the defacto complainant for sale of a property and Rs.3,60,000/- was received as advance from the defacto complainant and thereafter, the sale deed was not executed and thereby, he was cheated. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is only a civil dispute. The petitioner is prepared to sell the same property and execute the sale deed. But, only because the people of the locality obstructed the defacto complainant from filling the land, after execution of the agreement that he walked out from the agreement and hence, there is no default from the part of the petitioner. No civil suit has been filed so far for specific performance. Petitioner is prepared to abide by any condition as imposed by this Court. It is admitted that the BA No.6059/08 2 amount of Rs.3,60,000/- was received as advance. 4. Learned public prosecutor submitted that a huge amount was received by the petitioner and he has not executed the sale deed. He has not given back the money also. The agreement was renewed on two occasions. On hearing both sides, I find that an order can be passed to protect the interest of both sides. Hence, the following order is passed: Petitioner shall surrender before the Magistrate Court concerned within two weeks from today and if bail application is filed, he shall be released on bail on his executing bond for Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate on the following conditions: (i) Petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer and make himself available for interrogation as and when directed and he will co-operate with the investigation. (ii) Petitioner shall produce a fixed deposit BA No.6059/08 3 receipt in the name of the defacto complainant for an amount of Rs.3,60,000/- before the Magistrate Court within two weeks from today. (iii) If the condition in clause no.(ii) is complied with, no benefit under this order will flow. The petition is allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE csl