IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI FRIDAY, THE 1ST JANUARY 2010 / 11TH POUSHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 4216 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRIME NO. 280/2009 OF IRINJALAKKUDA POLICE STATION PETITIONER (S): ACCUSED 1,2,3,5 AND 6: ------------------------------------------ 1. KALADHARAN, S/O.MADHAVA PANICKER, AGED 42 YEARS, KALARICKAL HOUSE, NATTIKA DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK. 2. RAMESH CHANDRAN, S/O.CHANDRASEKHARAN, AGED 36 YEARS, CHENGUMPULLI HOUSE, KARUKULANGARA DESOM, MANAVALASSERY, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 3. M.V.RANA, S/O.VELU, AGED 39 YEARS, MANAPPARAMBIL HOUSE, THUMBUR DESOM, KOTTANELLUR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 4. ISMAIL, S/O.ABDUL RAHMAN, VALIYAKATH HOUSE, THANNIYAM VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK. 5. SANTHOSH KUMAR, S/O.RAMAN, VILLIAMANGALATH HOUSE, PUTHENCHIRA VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.ANIL RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT/STATE:1 ---------------------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, IRINJALAKKUDA POLICE STATION. 2. STATE REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.S.HRITHWIK THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.Q. BARKATH ALI, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. 4216 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated: JANUARY 1, 2010 ORDER This is an anticipatory bail application filed by accused 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 in Crime No.280 of 2009 of Irinjalakuda Police Station under section 438 of Cr.P.C. 2. The material averments in the application, in brief, are these:- The 1st petitioner is the plaintiff and de facto complainant is the defendant in O.S.No.174 of 2006 on the file of Sub Court, Irinjalakuda. The suit was filed for specific performance of agreement for sale. Defendant/accused contended that no such agreement was executed by him. Handwriting Expert has opined that there is some difference in the signatures of de facto complainant in the disputed document and in the admitted document. On the basis of the said fact the de facto complainant has filed this false complaint against the petitioners. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under sections 143, 149,417, 420, 468, 471 read with section 120B IPC. The petitioners apprehend arrest and harassment at the hands of the police and therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted to the petitioners. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The case between the petitioners and the de facto complainant appears to be a civil dispute. Further the apprehension of BA 4216/09 2 the petitioners regarding the arrest and harassment at the hands of the police appears to be true. Prosecution has no case if the petitioners are released on bail, they may abscond. Therefore, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 6. In the result, the application is allowed. The respondent is directed to release the petitioners on bail, in the event of their arrest, on their executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- (twenty five thousand) each with two solvent sureties for like sum each. The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required and shall co-operate with the investigation, if released on bail. P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE mn/-