IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 5452 of 2008()
1. CHARLIE, S/O. DAVIS AND THAVOO,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.S.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR (SR.)
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :03/09/2008
O R D E R
K. HEMA, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
B.A.No. 5452 of 2008
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 3rd day of September,2008
O R D E R
Application for anticipatory bail.
2. This is the second application for anticipatory bail. The
alleged offences are under sections 405, 417, 420, 120B read with
section 34 IPC. Petitioner is 3rd accused in the crime. According to
the prosecution, petitioner along with two others who are owners
of 41 cents of land and a commercial complex. Though the
property was hypothicated to K.F.C., suppressing the same, they
sold a portion of the property in favour of the defacto-
complainant. Later, the property was taken over by the K.F.C. and
auctioned to third parties, since there was default in payments.
Defacto-complainant who is the purchaser of the property filed a
complaint alleging cheating, conspiracy, etc., on the basis of
which the present crime is registered.
3. In the earlier application it was contended that defacto-
complainant purchased the property with the knowledge of
hypothecation. But the petitioner was not able to probabilise the
said contention. Therefore, documents are produced along with
BA 5452/08 -2-
this application and it is contended that in 2006 the K.F.C. Issued
notice to various tenants and though defacto-complainant was
aware of this fact, he has not chosen to file a complaint till 2008.
It is also contended that in a writ petition field by defacto-
complainant as W.P.(C) No.4659/2008 though the petitioner was a
party (respondent No.7) no whisper was made regarding any
alleged cheating by petitioner. The contest was only against
K.F.C. And not against petitioner. For all these reasons learned
counsel for the petitioner strongly argued that defacto-
complainant was aware of the transaction with the K.F.C. and no
offence is committed by petitioner. Learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that petitioner is in a highly critical stage
physically and he is admitted in the Lakeshore hospital and he is
under treatment now.
4. On going through the documents produced and the
order in writ petition referred above, I am satisfied that
anticipatory bail can be granted to petitioner on conditions. It is
also to be noted that auction sale was set aside by this Court in
Annexure-III judgment.
5. In the result, the following order is passed:-
Petitioner shall be released, in the event of his
BA 5452/08 -3-
arrest, if any, on bail on his executing a bond for
Rs. 25,000/- with two solvent sureties each for
the like amount to the satisfaction of the
arresting officer on condition that he shall make
himself available for interrogation by the
Investigating Officer as and when directed and
he will co-operate with the investigation.
The application is allowed as above.
K. HEMA, JUDGE.
mn.