IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 4491 of 2008()
1. VILAYIL MUKKALI NAFEESA
... Petitioner
2. MUHAMMAD FIJAS,(AGED 23 YEARS)
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.M.ASOKAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :17/07/2008
O R D E R
K. HEMA, J.
-----------------------------------------------
Bail Appl.No. 4491 of 2008
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of July, 2008.
ORDER
Petition for anticipatory bail.
2. The alleged offences are under Sections 420, 468 and
34 of IPC. The petitioners are the first and second accused. According
to prosecution, petitioners have executed an agreement in favour of
de facto complainant for sale of a property but a mortgage in favour
of the bank was suppressed and thereby they cheated the de facto
complainant.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that an
agreement as Annexure-1 was executed between the parties for the
sale of a property for an amount of Rs.4,60,000/-. Thereafter,
Rs.1, 60,000/- was received towards part of sale consideration. No
subsequent payment was effected by the de facto complainant and
hence petitioners caused a lawyer notice, which was sent to the de
facto complainant, revoking the agreement and copy of lawyer notice
is Annexure-II. The registered notice was not served on the de facto
complainant and it was returned stating that the addressee left
India. Thereafter, the de facto complainant came back to India and
insisted petitioners to sell the property on the basis of the agreement
which was already revoked. But, the petitioners were not prepared for
the same and hence de facto complainant filed a civil suit. Thereafter,
a criminal complaint was also filed making false allegations, it is
submitted. It was also pointed out that the alleged suppression of
mortgage is not correct because mortgage is a registered one and it
[B.A.4491/08] 2
will be revealed from the encumbrance certificate.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that charge has already
been laid in this case.
5. On hearing both sides and on going through the records, I
am satisfied that it is only just and proper to give anticipatory bail to
the petitioners. Eventhough charge-sheet is laid, in fit cases,
anticipatory bail can be granted so as to prevent pre-trial detention.
Hence the following order is passed:
1) Petitioners shall surrender before the investigating officer
within 7 days from the date of this order and make
themselves available for interrogation.
2) Thereafter, in the event of arrest of the petitioners, they
shall be produced before the Magistrate Court concerned
and, if any application is filed for bail, they shall be
released on bail on their executing bond for Rs.25,000/-
each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the
satisfaction of the learned Magistrate.
Petition is allowed.
K. HEMA, JUDGE.
Krs.