IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 112 of 2008(M)
1. M.M.HARIKUMAR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.LIJU. M.P
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :11/01/2008
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
------------------------------------
B.A.No.112 of 2008
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of January, 2008
ORDER
Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioner is the 1st
accused. He faces allegations under Section 420 I.P.C. The
crime is registered on the basis of a private complaint filed by the
defacto complainant before the learned Magistrate and referred
by the Magistrate to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The
1st accused had sold an item of property to the defacto
complainant on 04.06.03. That property originally belonged to
the 2nd accused. The 2nd accused had sold the property to the 1st
accused by document dated 04.04.02. Prior to the sale in favour
of the 1st accused, the 2nd accused had allegedly entered into an
agreement with one Ananthakrishnan for sale of the property.
That agreement did not work out and the said Ananthakrishnan
had allegedly instituted a suit against accused 1 and 2 before the
civil court. During the pendency of that suit, the sale deed dated
04.06.03 was executed suppressing details of the said suit. The
suit is for return of money paid as advance, it is further
submitted. It is also not disputed that the entire property
covered by the sale deed is not involved in the civil proceedings
B.A.No.112 of 2008 2
and only 6 out of an extent of about 36 cents is involved in the
said suit.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays, the
learned Public Prosecutor does not oppose the said prayer and I
am satisfied that anticipatory bail can be granted to the
petitioner. I take note of the submissions of the learned counsel
for the petitioner that at worst the petitioner may be liable to
pay amounts if any decreed by the court in the suit filed by the
said Ananthakrishnan and there is no fraudulent suppression of
any crucial facts effecting the sale of property.
3. In the result, this Bail Application is, allowed. The
following directions are issued under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
i) The petitioner shall appear before the learned
Magistrate at 11 a.m on 18.01.2008. He shall be enlarged on
regular bail on his executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to
the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate;
ii) The petitioner shall make himself available for
interrogation before the Investigating Officer between 10 a.m and
1 p.m on 21.01.2008 and 22.01.2008. During this period, the
Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to interrogate the
B.A.No.112 of 2008 3
petitioner in custody and take all necessary steps in the proper
conduct of the investigation. Thereafter the petitioner shall make
himself available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer
between 10 a.m and 12 noon on all Mondays and Fridays for a
period of two months. Subsequently the petitioner shall make
himself available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer
as and when directed by the Investigating Officer in writing to do
so;
iii) If the petitioner does not appear before the learned
Magistrate as directed in clause (i), directions issued above shall
thereafter stand revoked and the police shall be at liberty to
arrest the petitioner and deal with him in accordance with law as
if those directions were not issued at all;
iv) If the petitioner were arrested prior to his surrender
on 18.01.08 as directed in clause (1) above, he shall be released
from custody on his executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees
Twenty Five thousand only) without any sureties undertaking to
appear before the learned Magistrate on 18.01.08.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-