Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN THURSDAY, THE24H DAY OF OCTOBER20132ND KARTHIKA, 1935 Bail Appl..No. 6882 of 2013 () ------------------------------- CRIME NO.3518/2013 OF ALUVA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. ....... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ----------------------------------- SEETHI, AGED47 S/O. IBRAHIMKUTTY, THAMMANAMVEEDU, KOLLAMKUDIYIL, COCHIN PUBLIC SCHOOL ROAD, THRIKAKKARA -682 021. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR). STATE OF KERALA/COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALUVA POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM- 682 031. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.P. MAYA. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON2410-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. P.BHAVADASAN, J.
--------------------------------------- Bail Application No.6882 OF2013--------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of October, 2013. ORDER
A private complaint which was forwarded for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure resulted in registration of Crime No.3518/2013 of Aluva Police Station in which the petitioner himself has been arrayed as 3rd accused. The petitioner is alleged to have committed the offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code.
2. The petitioner would point out that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the matter. According to him, he happened to purchase a piece of property from a person and that person seems to have borrowed some money from the de facto complainant. The de facto complainant has now filed a complaint alleging conspiracy and connivance between the petitioner and the vendor and on that basis, the crime has been registered. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail. B.A.No.6882/2013 2 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and pointed out that it was under the pressure of the petitioner that the money had been borrowed.
4. After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor and also after having perused the records, there seems to be considerable force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegations may not be wholly true. There is nothing to show that as of now there was any connivance in the purchase by the petitioner of the land from the vendor. A deeper probe into the veracity of the allegations is not warranted at this point of time. Prima facie, it would appear that the claim of the petitioner is true. Therefore, the application is allowed on the following conditions: i) The petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer on or before 31.10.2013 who, after interrogation, shall produce him before the Court concerned, which court, on application for bail being moved by the petitioner, shall release him on bail on his executing bond for a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees B.A.No.6882/2013 3 Fifteen Thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the Court concerned. ii) The Court concerned shall ensure the identity of the sureties and also the veracity of the tax receipts produced by them. iii) The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer on every Tuesday between 9 a.m and 10 a.m until further orders. iv) The petitioner shall not tamper or attempt to tamper with the evidence or influence or try to influence the witness. v) If any of the condition is violated, the bail granted shall stand cancelled and the Court concerned, on being satisfied of the said fact, may take such steps as are available to it in law. Sd/- P.BHAVADASAN JUDGE smp // True Copy // P.A. to Judge.