Anandakuttan V.K vs State Of Kerala

Dr. Kauser Edappagath, J

This is an application for anticipatory bail filed by the accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Crime No.737/2020 of Thrikkakara Janamaithry Police Station.

The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 406, 420 and 34 of IPC.

The case of the prosecution in short is that the petitioners by forging documents made believe the defacto complainant that they are the owners of

the property covered by the document and entered into a sale agreement on 24.3.2020 between the 2nd petitioner and the defacto complainant and

received Rs.35,00,000/- on different occasions and thereafter cheated the defacto complainant without conveying the property or returning the amount

and thereby committed the offence.

Heard both sides and perused the case diary.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are absolutely innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the present

case. He further submitted that there are no materials to connect the petitioners with the alleged crime and hence they are entitled to get bail. The

learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. He contended that the alleged incident occurred as a part of the intentional criminal acts of the

petitioners and if the petitioners are released on bail at this stage, it would affect the course of investigation.

The case records would reveal that the dispute is predominantly civil in nature. The petitioners are husband and wife. The records would show that

on 24.3.2020, the defacto complainant entered into an agreement for sale with the 2nd petitioner to purchase 10 cents of property belongs to her for a

consideration of Rs.85,00,000/-. Admittedly, Rs.35,00,000/- was received by the 2nd petitioner. According to the petitioners, the defacto complainant

failed to perform his part of the contract by paying the balance consideration. Annexures (b) and (c) would show that the 2nd petitioner issued lawyer

notice asking the defacto complainant to perform his part of the contract. But there was no compliance. Thereafter, the defacto complainant instituted

a civil suit for return of advance amount against the 2nd petitioner. It was thereafter the criminal complaint was filed and crime was registered.

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioners are not necessary. Hence,

the petitioners is entitled to pre-arrest bail on conditions.

In the result, the application is allowed on the following conditions:-

(i) The petitioners shall be released on bail in the event of their arrest on executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) each with two solvent sureties for

the like sum each to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/investigating officer, as the case may be.

(ii) The petitioners shall fully co-operate with the investigation, including subjecting themselves to the deemed police custody for the purpose of discovery, if any, as

and when demanded.

(iii) The petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer between 10.00 a.m and 11.00 a.m on every Saturday until further orders. The petitioner shall also

appear before the investigating officer as and when required by him.

(iv) The petitioners shall not commit any offence of like nature while on bail.

(v) The petitioners shall not make any attempt to contact any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or through any other person, or any other way try to tamper with

the evidence or influence any witnesses or other persons related to the investigation.

(vi) The petitioners shall not leave State of Kerala without the permission of the trial Court.