The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for documentary evidence to determine the nature of transactions and liability in cases involving financial dealings, as well as the need for permission from the Central Government for transactions conducted in certain jurisdictions.

ORDER :

Ashok Menon, J.

1. Application filed under Section 438, Cr.P.C. for anticipatory bail.

2. The applicant is the sole accused in Crime No. 544 of 2020 of Infopark Police Station for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 406, 417, 420, 468 and 500 of the I.P.C.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the applicant had dishonestly induced the de facto complainant to deliver huge sums of money running into crores of rupees making him believe that he would be made a partner in the business venture started by the applicant in Kuwait and Singapore. Promising to pay good returns the applicant had also induced the de facto complainant to transfer rupees one crore into the account of one Rajan, who was introduced by the applicant to the de facto complainant, stating that the said Rajan is involved in financial trading. Promises were also given by the applicant about starting a company in Singapore assuring good returns. The de facto complainant was made to believe that the applicant is a close relative of the Pandalam Raja and that he could arrange purchase of huge tracts of land in Pandalam. Documents were created by the applicant for the purpose of cheating the de facto complainant and he misappropriated the entire amount in this transfer by the de facto complainant. That apart, the applicant also defamed the de facto complainant and his wife.

4. The applicant states that the allegations are untrue and unsustainable. The applicant and the de facto complainant were colleagues working together in a company from 2009 to 2013. The de facto complainant started a company named High-tech Equipments in the year 2013. He offered a job to the applicant in his company after the applicant had resigned from the company in which he was employed. No monetary transactions had taken place between the applicant and the de facto complainant during the period he was an employee under the de facto complainant. In the year 2014, the applicant started an independent venture named Royal Westline based in Kuwait and the de facto complainant was also made a partner in that firm. Thereafter, the applicant and the de facto complainant started another company named Q8 Management Consultancy based in Singapore as partners. The de facto complainant did not transfer any amount to the applicant as alleged. A sum of Rs. 43 lakhs was transferred to the account of the applicant towards salary due from High-tech Equipments during the year 2018-2019. Thereafter, the applicant started another company with the person named Gopakumar under the name and style Westline High-Tech Products and Services India Pvt. Ltd. The de facto complainant showed no interest or desire to join that company. His proposal to join the venture in India came at the point when he was disowned by his sponsor in Kuwait as a result of which he lost access to the company's bank account. The applicant also states that an employee named Hari Krishnan was fired from the company as it was found that he was indulging in malpractices and misappropriation of funds. He has also played a major role in manipulating the de facto complainant. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. He is willing to co-operate with the investigation. There is no need for any custodial interrogation and therefore he seeks pre-arrest bail.

5. The de facto complainant was impleaded as the 2nd respondent, who has appeared and filed a detailed counter objection reiterating his case mentioned in the complaint. He has also produced documents to indicate the fraud deployed by the applicant in misleading him by sending WhatsApp messages. It is submitted that the applicant may abscond and therefore, he may not be granted pre-arrest bail.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri M. Revikrishnan, the counsel appearing for the defacto complainant Sri. Saiby Jose Kidangoor and the learned Prosecutor Smt. V. Sreeja. Records perused.

7. It is an admitted fact that the applicant and the de facto complainant ha