ABDUL SATHAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

(2.) The petitioners are accused 1 to 4 in the case registered as Crime No.255/2018 of the Thaliparamba police station under Section 420 read with 120B I.P.C .

(3.) The case against the petitioners has been registered on the basis of a complaint filed by the de facto complainant in the Magistrate's Court concerned which was forwarded to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The allegations in this complaint can be briefly stated as follows: The de facto complainant and his wife owned 23.100 acres of property at Thaliparamba. The de facto complainant had mortgaged the property in the Kerala State Co-operative Bank and availed a loan from there. The liability in that loan account had accrued to six crores and eighty lakhs rupees. The de facto complainant and his wife decided to sell their property. In the month of January 2016, the first and the second accused approached the de facto complainant and told him that they are ready to purchase the property for a consideration of Rs.65,000/- per cent. The de facto complainant and the accused agreed that the documents relating to the same can be prepared on the basis of the copies of the original documents relating to the property because the original documents were in the bank. The first and the second accused had agreed and promised the de facto complainant that they would clear the liability over the property in the bank and pay the balance amount of consideration to him. Thus, 12.396 acres of property was assigned in favour of the first and the second accused and the other accused who are their relatives. The accused gave the de facto complainant only an amount of Rs.1,25,74,000/- as consideration after deducting the liability for six crores eighty lakhs rupees in the bank. However, the accused did not clear the liability over the property in the bank. The bank took steps against the de facto complainant for realising the amount from another property having a building which was also mortgaged by him to the bank. It is alleged that the accused had hatched a conspiracy to cheat the de facto complainant and to grab his property and pursuant to such conspiracy, they cheated him by not clearing the liability over the property in the bank.