High Court Kerala High Court

K.V.Kuriakose @ Kurian vs State Of Kerala (S.I Of Police on 19 October, 2009

Kerala High Court
K.V.Kuriakose @ Kurian vs State Of Kerala (S.I Of Police on 19 October, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 5946 of 2009()


1. K.V.KURIAKOSE @ KURIAN,S/O. VARKEY,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. KAVUMPURATH JAIN, W/O. DOMINIC,

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA (S.I OF POLICE,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN

 Dated :19/10/2009

 O R D E R
                        K.T.SANKARAN, J.
                  ---------------------------------------------
                         B.A.No.5946 of 2009
                  ---------------------------------------------
             Dated this the 19th day of October, 2009



                               ORDER

This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section

438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are

accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.30 of 2009 of Kudiyanmala

Police Station.

2. The offence alleged against the petitioners is under

Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The defacto complainant filed a complaint before the

court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Taliparamba

which was forwarded to the police under Section 156(3) of the

Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, the crime was

registered.

4. The case of the defacto complainant is that the first

accused agreed to sell an item of immovable property to him for

a consideration fixed and an advance was also paid. Later,

instead of transferring the property to the defacto complainant,

the first accused transferred the property to the second accused

BA No.5946/2009 2

and thus, they committed the offence under Section 420 of the

Indian Penal Code.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that

even if all the allegations are taken as true, it would be a ground

for a civil action. In fact, the defacto complainant has filed

O.S.No.83 of 2009 against the petitioners before the Sub Court,

Payyannur for specific performance of the agreement for sale.

The suit is pending.

6. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the

case, the nature of the offence and other circumstances, I am of

the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners.

There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of

the petitioners, the officer in charge of the police station shall

release them on bail on their executing bond for Rs.15,000/-

each with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the

satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following

conditions:

a) The petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer
for interrogation as and when required;

b) The petitioners shall not try to influence the prosecution
witnesses or tamper with the evidence;

BA No.5946/2009 3

c) The petitioners shall not commit any offence or indulge in
any prejudicial activity while on bail;

d) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above,
the bail shall be liable to be cancelled.

The Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated

above.

K.T.SANKARAN,
JUDGE
csl