IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 6667 of 2008()
1. HARIKRISHNAN T.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.N.RETHEESH
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :06/11/2008
O R D E R
K.HEMA, J.
---------------------------------------------
B.A.No.6667 of 2008
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 6th November, 2008
O R D E R
This petition is for anticipatory bail.
2. According to prosecution, petitioner (A6) and other
accused conspired to cheat defacto complainant, and in
furtherance of common intention, A1 procured sale deed of the
property belonging to defacto complainant under the pretext of
raising some money for defacto complainant who was in need of
money, but, instead of getting a mortgage deed executed, made
the defacto complainant to execute sale deed in respect of the
same property in favour of second and third accused and
thereafter, a loan was raised pledging the property and the
accused obtained Rs.1 lakh. On coming to know of commission
of offence, defacto complainant lodged a complaint before the
police. Since, no action was taken by police, a private complaint
was filed before the Magistrate court which was forwarded
under Section 156(3) Crl.P.C. and a crime was registered.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that as per
BA No.6667/2008 2
the allegations in the complaint, the role of sixth accused is very
limited. He only introduced first accused to defacto complainant.
There is no allegation that he conspired to commit any offence.
There is nothing in the complaint to show that petitioner, who
is the sixth accused, shared any common intention with other
accused to commit offence, it is submitted. The role of petitioner
is totally different from other accused and even the defacto
complainant has not implicated petitioner as an accused and the
complaint was filed only against A1 to A4. Because of political
reasons, petitioner has been dragged into this case and included
in the array of accused, it is submitted.
4. Learned public prosecutor submitted that petitioner
may be directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer
and co-operate with the investigation. Subject to that, he has no
objection in granting anticipatory bail, it is submitted.
On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that anticipatory bail
can be granted to the petitioner and hence, the following order is
passed:
(1) Petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating
Officer within seven days from today and co-operate
BA No.6667/2008 3
with the investigation.
(2) In the event of his arrest, petitioner shall be released
on bail on his executing bond for Rs.25,000/- with two
solvent sureties each for like sum to the satisfaction of
the arresting officer on the following conditions:
(i) Petitioner shall report before the
Investigating Officer as and when directed.
(ii) Petitioner shall co-operate with the
investigation.
(ii) Petitioner shall not tamper with evidence,
influence or intimidate any witness or
commit any offence while on bail.
The petition is allowed.
K.HEMA, JUDGE
csl