IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 2230 of 2010()
1. BALKRISHNA BHAT, S/O. DAMODARA BHAT,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.JOSEPH EDAKKATT
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :14/06/2010
O R D E R
K.HEMA, J
-----------------------
B.A No.2230 OF 2010
--------------------------------
Dated this the 14th day of June 2010
ORDER
This petition is for anticipatory bail.
2. The alleged offences are under Sections 420, 325, 352
and 405 of IPC. According to prosecution, petitioner made false
representation to de facto complainant who is an Italian born
American citizen that property will be purchased and she will be
allowed to reside in the building to be constructed, on lease etc.
and she was made to part with a huge amount of rupees, about
one crore in total, on different dates to petitioner. Property was
purchased in the name of petitioner and buildings were
constructed and a lease agreement was also executed. But,
thereafter, petitioner is trying to evict de facto complainant and
send her out of the property. De facto complainant was cheated
by petitioner and he also misappropriated money and ill-treated
her by physically manhandling her. They were living as husband
and wife.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the
allegations are false. Petitioner had only allowed de facto
complainant to reside in a building constructed in his property
and a lease agreement was executed for a period of 99 years at
B.A No.2230 OF 2010 2
the rate of Re.1/- per month as rent. But, de facto complainant
started creating problems to petitioner by consuming liquor along
with his workers in the restaurant and when he objected to this, she
started behaving badly to petitioner. Thereafter, de facto
complainant gave a false complaint to the police.
4. This petition is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor and
learned counsel for the de facto complainant. It is submitted by
learned counsel for de facto complainant that the parties were living
as husband and wife and an order was obtained by de facto
complainant from the Magistrate Court injuncting petitioner from
alienating the schedule property and interfering with the peaceful
residence of de facto complainant and also from committing any act
of domestic violence. He had physically assaulted de facto
complainant and disconnected the electricity connection to the
building in which de facto complainant was residing and she had to
run in darkness and she hit against the window glass and she was
injured. It is also understood that petitioner is in the habit of taking
money from other foreign nationals also by making false
representations and cheat them.
B.A No.2230 OF 2010 3
5. Learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that the Case Diary
reveals serious allegations against the petitioner.
6. On hearing both sides, considering the serious nature of the
allegations made, I am satisfied that this is not a fit case to grant
anticipatory bail.
Petition is dismissed.
K.HEMA
JUDGE
vdv