The petitioner is the defacto complainant in Crime No.728 of 2013 of Kuttipuram Police Station. In that case, the 2nd respondent herein is the 1st accused. He was granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 15.07.2014 in B.A.No.5030 of 2014. In the said order, the 2nd respondent herein was specifically directed through Condition No.(vi)(c) as follows: “(vi)(c) Petitioner shall file affidavit before the learned magistrate while executing the bail bond detailing the immovable properties his owns (other than said to be transferred to the de facto complainant) and undertaking that the said properties would not be sold (subject to the claim of the Bank or any other person) or otherwise encumbered until otherwise ordered by the learned magistrate.”
2. It seems that the 2nd respondent herein, who is the petitioner in B.A.No.5030 of 2014, has filed an affidavit. At the same time, according to the petitioner herein, the 2nd respondent has deliberately suppressed some of the immovable properties with him in Annexure A2 affidavit. The defacto complainant has pointed out that the 2nd respondent at the time of filing the affidavit, had a property with him which was acquired through Annexure A3 sale deed No.2652 of 2008 of the Ponnani Sub Registry. Annexure A4 is the encumbrance certificate in respect of the property. It is alleged that the existence of the said property was deliberately suppressed by the 2nd respondent herein in Annexure A2 affidavit. It is also alleged that over and above the said property, the 2nd respondent had several other properties also and the details of the said properties were also deliberately suppressed by the 2nd respondent. On the aforesaid grounds, the defacto complainant has pointed out that the 2nd respondent has violated the bail conditions imposed by this Court and therefore, the anticipatory bail granted to the 2nd respondent herein is liable to be cancelled.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent has pointed out that the 2nd respondent had entered into an unregistered agreement for sale with another person in respect of the said property covered by Annexure A3, prior to the filing of the affidavit and that was the reason why he had not revealed the existence of the said property in Annexure A2 affidavit. It is argued that the said property was already sold and that is the reason why its details were not shown.
5. It cannot be believed that the 2nd respondent had sold the property to another person without a registered sale deed. Even though an unregistered agreement has been produced before this Court, it cannot be believed that the said unregistered agreement could assume the status of a sale deed. If any such unregistered agreement had been genuinely entered by the 2nd respondent herein with a third party, the 2nd respondent ought to have detailed those aspects in Annexure A2 affidavit. When no such details were shown, it has to be noted that he had deliberately suppressed the existence of such a property in Annexure A2 affidavit. Such a condition mentioned above was deliberately imposed by this Court as there were serious allegations of misappropriation and criminal breach of trust against the 2nd respondent herein in Crime No.728 of 2013. In fact, the liability alleged was running to crores of rupees. When the 2nd respondent has deliberately suppressed the existence of the said property in Annexure A2 affidavit, it seems that he has played fraud on this Court, and he has deliberately violated the condition imposed by this Court while granting anticipatory bail through Annexure A1 order dated 15.07.2014 in B.A.No.5030 of 2014. Matters being so, the said order is liable to be cancelled.
In the result, this Crl.M.C is allowed and the anticipatory bail granted by this Court vide order dated 15.07.2014 in B.A.No.5030 of 2014 to the 2nd respondent herein is cancelled.
Sd/-
DSV/08/12 B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE // True Copy // P.A. To Judge