Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Kerala
  4. /
  5. 2014
  6. /
  7. January

Samuel Babu vs State Of

High Court Of Kerala|28 October, 2014
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 2. According to the petitioners, they are apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No.2059/2014 of Adoor Police Station, Pathanamthitta District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13 and 17 of the Kerala Money Lenders Act.
3. It is alleged that the de-facto complainant wanted an amount of ₹10,00,000/- by way of loan, for which he approached the petitioners. The petitioners wanted the de-facto complainant to execute an agreement for a sale, in respect of the property of the de-facto complainant. An agreement was executed by showing the advance amount as ₹19,50,000/-, and the total consideration of the property as ₹50,00,000/-. It is alleged that on getting the agreement executed, an amount of ₹10,00,000/- alone was paid. When the de-facto complainant attempted to close the liability, it is alleged that the petitioners have demanded an amount of ₹30,00,000/-
4. Heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that this is a simple case, wherein a property was agreed to be sold to the petitioners, for a consideration of ₹50,00,000/-, by accepting an amount of ₹19,50,000/- as part of consideration. As the necessity on the part of the de-facto complainant ceased, the de-facto complainant did not want to part with the property. For resisting the specific performance of the agreement, the de-facto complainant had executed a settlement deed in respect of the property in favour of the sister of the de-facto complainant. Fed up with the transaction, the petitioners wanted to get back the money and they did not want to get the property. As the amount was not returned, the petitioners have filed a suit for money, as O.S. No.66 of 2014 before the Subordinate Judge's Court, Pathanamthitta, which is still pending. In that suit, the relief sought for, is only for the return of money with interest and not the property.
6. According to the learned senior counsel, when a drive has been started by the Kerala Police, under the name 'Operation Kubera', the de-facto complainant wanted to encash it and thereby he has chosen to file a complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Pathanamthitta, making a false allegation that the petitioners have been indulging in illegal money lending. It has been argued that the petitioners have never engaged in money lending.
7. On going through the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the pendency of the civil litigation, in which a sizable amount was paid as court fee, this Court is the view that the matter involved is merely a civil dispute. The custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required for the continued investigation of this case. Matters being so, I am of the view that this is a fit case wherein anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners.
8. In the result, this bail application is allowed and the investigating officer or such other police officer, who is conducting the arrest of the petitioners, is directed to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest on each of them executing a bond for ₹25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the officer conducting arrest, and subject to the following terms and conditions:-
(i) The petitioners shall report before the investigating officer in between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. on all Fridays and Tuesdays, commencing from 31.10.2014 for a period of three months or till the filing of the final report in this case, whichever is earlier.
(ii) The petitioners shall not tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses.
(iii) The petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation as and when required by the investigating officer.
(iv) The petitioners shall not involve in any offence while on bail.
It is made clear that the violation of any of the conditions stipulated above will result in the cancellation of bail.
Sd/-
B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE dl // TRUE COPY // PA to Judge
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Samuel Babu vs State Of

Court

High Court Of Kerala

JudgmentDate
28 October, 2014
Judges
  • B Kemal Pasha
Advocates
  • Sri Kurian
  • Sri Thomas George