Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE16H DAY OF OCTOBER201424TH ASWINA, 1936 Bail Appl..No. 7063 of 2014 -------------------------------------- CRIME NO. 474/2014 OF VIDYA NAGAR POLICE STATION , KASARGOD ------------- PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.2:: --------------------------------------------- RAFEEQU, AGED39YEARS, S/O.ABDULLA, AYAMPARAMBU HOUSE, MEEPPUGIRI P.O., RAMDASNAGAR, KASARAGODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.CHINCY GOPAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.T.Y. LALIZA THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON1610-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PJ K. Ramakrishnan, J.
============================== B.A.No.7063 of 2014 ============================== Dated this, the 16th day of October, 2014. ORDER
This is an application for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner who is the second accused in Crime No.474/2014 of Vidyanagar police station, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. The case of the prosecution in nutshell was that the accused numbers 2 and 3 as brokers approached the de facto complainant when he was in need of property and induced him to purchase the property in Survey No.31 of Kuttikkol Village said to be belonged to first accused and induced him to part with huge amount and executed an agreement to sell in respect of that property and though he was prepared to pay the balance amount and get the document executed, they did not do the same and when he enquired with the village office, it was revealed that the property do not belong to the first accused and knowing that it is a different property, they have dishonestly made the de facto complainant to enter into an agreement and thereby, all of them have committed the B.A.No.7063 of 2014 :
2. : offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence and he is innocent of the same and he was only made to sign an agreement entered into between the de facto complainant and the first accused in respect of a property transaction and he was not aware of the contents of the documents and that happened in the year 2013 and now, a false complaint has been filed against him and he is prepared to co-operate with the investigation.
4. The application was opposed by the Public Prosecutor on the ground that the investigation is not over and the presence of the petitioner will be required for proper investigation.
5. Heard both sides and perused the records.
6. It is seen from the records that the above case was registered on the basis of a private complaint filed by the de facto complainant before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kasaragod against the petitioner and two others alleging commission of the offences under Section 420 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code which was forwarded to the B.A.No.7063 of 2014 :
3. : police for investigation under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure and on receipt of the same, the Vidyanagar police has registered Crime No.474/2014 of that police station against the accused persons including the petitioner under Section 420 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The fact that the petitioner signed the agreement as a witness is in a way admitted. But, on going through the allegations in the complaint, it appears that they are real estate brokers and he is one of the real estate brokers who along with third accused approached him and induced him to purchase the property of first accused alleging that he is having property in Survey No.31 of Kuttikkol Village showed a different property and huge amount was parted with to the first accused and they did not return the amount nor had they got the document executed after measuring the property as agreed. On enquiry, it was revealed that the property mentioned in the agreement is not the property belonging to the first accused, but it was an entirely different property. So, considering the circumstances, it cannot be said that at this stage, the petitioner has no role as claimed by the Counsel for the petitioner. However, the presence of the petitioner may be required for proper B.A.No.7063 of 2014 :
4. : investigation. So, this court feels that at this stage it is not proper to invoke the power under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure. He can very well surrender before the investigating officer or before the concerned court and move for regular bail. If the petitioner surrenders before the investigating officer, after interrogation, if the investigating officer feels that his arrest is required, then, after recording his arrest, produce him before the concerned magistrate court without delay and on such production and if any application for bail has been filed by the petitioner, then, the learned magistrate is directed to consider and dispose of the bail application in accordance with law on the date of filing of the application itself after hearing the Assistant Public Prosecutor of that court as well. With the above direction and observation, the application is dismissed. Sd/- K.Ramakrishnan, Judge. Bb [True copy] P.A to Judge