C CHANDRAN ASARI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are some among the accused, A1 to A3, in Crime No.273 of 2009 of Vanchiyoor Police Station, Trivandrum registered for the offence punishable under Section 420 r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The above crime was registered on a complaint given by a nationalised bank, alleging that the bank had been cheated of substantial sum by the accused persons by the fraud carried out over a security offered for obtaining a loan by first accused. All the accused persons, pursuant to common intention to defraud the bank, before furnishing security for getting a loan, created arrangement between the vendor and purchaser, A4 and A1, as if the very same property could be disposed of for valuable consideration by the vendor again. Suppressing the execution of such agreement, loan was obtained from the bank to purchase a property by first accused, and the deed of transfer of such property was later deposited towards security creating an equitable mortgage. The deed of transfer remained only in paper, and effective control and ownership of property on the clandestine arrangement made by parties remained with others, and, later when the loan was defaulted by the borrower, then alone the bank found the fraud practised upon, was its case to set the criminal law in motion against the accused. Petitioners after moving unsuccessfully an application for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Judge, which was turned down vide Annexure-C, have filed this petition seeking such discretionary relief from this court.

(2.) After hearing the submissions made by learned counsel for petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor and also perusing the case diary, which was made available, I find that there are circumstances to suspect complicity of petitioners in the offence imputed. I do not wish to express, in particular, such circumstances on the materials covered by case to avoid any prejudice being caused to the accused in the investigation/ trial of the case. Though the property offered as security by first petitioner was transferred in his favour in 2006, it appears, mutation has not been effected in the name of transferee so far. Though learned counsel appearing for petitioners would submit that there was some objection in effecting imputation, whatever explanation thereof, and its acceptability, has to be considered by the investigating officer.

(3.) Having regard to the imputations made and also circumstances presented, which would indicate that the property purported to have been purchased by first petitioner had been subsequently transferred by his vendor to another one year later on the basis of an agreement with first accused, prior to the transfer deed in his favour, I find petitioners are not entitled to the discretionary relief of pre-arrest bail.