IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 43 of 2009()
1. THOMAS GEORGE, AGED 40,
... Petitioner
2. R.F. THOMAS,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR)
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :07/07/2009
O R D E R
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
------------------------------------------------------
B.A. NO. 43 OF 2009
------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 7th July, 2009
O R D E R
This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are the accused persons in
Crime No.1349 of 2008 of Kadavanthara Police Station.
2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections
405, 406, 409, 415, 417, 418, 420, 423 and 424 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The gist of the prosecution case is that the first accused caused
to publish advertisement in newspaper stating that his property was
available for sale. The de facto complainant entered into an agreement
for sale with the first accused and a sum of Rs.15 lakhs was paid as
advance. On the date on which the agreement was entered into, the
property was subject to attachment by civil court. Knowing fully well that
there was attachment and that the first accused would not be entitled to
transfer the property, the agreement was entered into. The petitioners
moved for anticipatory bail before the learned Sessions Judge, which was
dismissed by the Sessions Court, Ernakulam as per the order dated
27.12.2008 in Crl.M.C.No.2324 of 2008.
B.A. NO. 43 OF 2009
:: 2 ::
4. I have gone through the case diary. I do not agree with the
learned counsel for the petitioners that prima facie no offence is made out
in the case.
5. However, the second petitioner/second accused is not the
owner of the property. There is no case that he has received any amount
as consideration. He was a witness to the agreement. The allegation is
that he also participated in the negotiations. The case of the second
accused stands on a different footing.
6. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I
do not think that the first petitioner/first accused is entitled to get an order
for anticipatory bail. However, I am of the view that the second
petitioner/second accused can be granted anticipatory bail. There will
be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the second petitioner, the
officer in charge of the police station shall release him on bail for a period
of one month on his executing bond for Rs.25,000/- with two solvent
sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned,
subject to the following conditions:
B.A. NO. 43 OF 2009
:: 3 ::
a) The second petitioner shall report before the investigating officer
between 9 A.M. and 11 A.M. on all Mondays, till the final report
is filed or until further orders;
b) The second petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer
for interrogation as and when required;
c) The second petitioner shall not try to influence the prosecution
witnesses or tamper with the evidence;
d) The second petitioner shall not commit any offence or indulge in
any prejudicial activity while on bail;
e) On the expiry of the period mentioned above or even before that
period, the second petitioner shall surrender before the Magistrate
concerned and seek regular bail;
f) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the
bail shall be liable to be cancelled.
The Bail Application is dismissed in so far as it relates to the first
petitioner and allowed in the manner indicated above in so far as it relates
to the second petitioner.
(K.T.SANKARAN)
Judge
ahz/