Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE28H DAY OF OCTOBER20136TH KARTHIKA, 1935 Bail Appl..No. 6952 of 2013 (A) ------------------------------------------ [CRIME NO. 500/2013 OF VENMANI POLICE STATION] ............... PETITIONER: ------------------- SREEJESH, AGED33 S/O.BALAKRISHNA PILLA, SREE PARVATHY, KALLISSERY, UMAYATHI KARA, CHENGANOOR. BY ADVS.SRI.T.RAJESH, SMT.P.V.SARITHA VENUGOPAL. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. SREEJITH. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON2810-2013, ALONG WITH BA. NO.6982/2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Prv. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J --------------------------------------- B.A.Nos.6952 & 6982 of 2013 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of October, 2013 ORDER
These applications are preferred by the accused Nos. 1 and 2 respectively, in Crime No.500 of 2013 of the Venmani Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 418, 420 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. Allegation is that the accused Nos. 1 and 2 cheated the defacto complainant to the tune of Rs. 10 and /2 lakhs. 1 2. Learned counsel submitted that there was an agreement executed between the first accused and the owner of 4.81 Ares of the property as per which the first accused was to purchase that property for Rs.45 lakhs. The same day, the first accused and the defacto complainant executed an agreement as per which the said property was to be conveyed to the defacto complainant for Rs.48 and /2 lakhs and certain 1 advance payments were also made to the defacto complainant in accordance with the terms and conditions agreement. While so, the owner of the property attempted to alienated the property and thereon the first accused filed O.S.No.39 of 2011 in the Munsiff's Court Chengannor for a decree for prohibitory injection against alienation. That was B.A.Nos.6952 & 6982 of 2013 2 followed by the first accused filing a suite for specific performance as well. However, the owner of the property took the stand that the property has already been transferred to another person. It is submitted that the defacto complainant has filed a suit against the first accused as. O.S.No.263 of 2013 of the Munsiff's Court Chengannor for recovery of 9,50,000/- with interest.
3. According to the learned counsel, the entire amount has been paid to the defacto complainant and inspite of that, the property of the first accused has been placed under attachment in the said suit.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that huge amount is due to the defacto complainant.
5. Having regard to the above circumstances, I am inclined to grant relief to the petitioner but subject to the conditions. Resultantly, these applications are allowed as under: a) Petitioners/ accused Nos. 1 and 2 shall surrender before the officer investigating Crime No.500 of 2013 of the Venmani Police Station on 04-11-2013 at 10 a.m for interrogation. B.A.Nos.6952 & 6982 of 2013 3 b) If interrogation of the petitioners is not completed that day, they shall appear before the officer investigating the case on the day/days and time directed by him which the petitioner shall comply. c) Petitioners shall co-operate with investigating of the case and produced all the relevant documents if any, in their custody. d) In case arrest of the petitioners is recorded, they shall be produced before the jurisdictional magistrate the same day. e) On such production the petitioners shall be released on bail in Crime No.500 of 2013 of the Venmani Police Station (if not required to be detained otherwise) on their executing bond of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) each with two sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned magistrate and subject to the following conditions:
1. Petitioners shall report to the officer investigating the case on every alternate Saturday between 10 a.m and 12 p.m for a period of two months or until filing of the final report, whichever is earlier. 2) Petitioners shall report to the officer investigating B.A.Nos.6952 & 6982 of 2013 4 the case as and when required for interrogation. 3) Petitioners shall not, during the period of this bail get involved in any offence. 4) Petitioners shall not interfere with the investigation of the case. 5) In case any of the above conditions is violated, bail granted hereby is liable to be cancelled for which the investigating officer may move application before the learned magistrate as held in P.K.Shaji Vs. State of Kerala (AIR 2006 SC100. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE AS