Bail can be granted under strict conditions even in serious allegations if the accused has been in custody for a significant time and the investigation has progressed.

The petitioner is the 2nd accused in Crime No.9 of 2024 of the Cyber Crime Police Station, Kannur. He was arrested on 18.06.2024. His application for bail was dismissed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and also by the Sessions Court. Hence he filed this petition under the provisions of Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 .

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

3.The crime was registered with allegation that the petitioner in connivance with the 1st accused, extracted an amount of Rs.15,96,585/- from the defacto complainant offering her a false assurance that she would be provided with a part time online employment. After receiving the said sum during the period from 10.02.2024 till 01.03.2024, the petitioner and the 1st accused refused to honour their words and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 66 (D) of the Information Technology Act .

4.The 1st accused was granted bail by this Court as per the order dated 30.04.2024. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that all the amounts were received in the account of the 1st accused and the petitioner has no role in receiving the money or in the transactions. On the basis of a confession statement of the 1st accused alone, the petitioner was implicated in the crime and he is innocent.

5.The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions would submit that the petitioner was the person really received the money and gave assurance to the defacto complainant. The account of the 1st accused was really operated and used by the petitioner to receive money deceptively. Further probe in the matter is essential to locate the money obtained deceptively from the defacto complainant and also to verify involvement of others in commission of the offence.

6.The transactions were through a bank account. Therefore the records are available in order to establish the payment of money. The allegation of the defacto complainant has authenticity and reliability to a great extent. When her specific allegation is that the petitioner was the person primarily did the deceptive acts, same can only be acted upon at this stage. Therefore the contention that the petitioner has no role in the alleged transactions cannot be accepted.

7.All the same, the petitioner has been in custody from 18.06.2024. The investigating agency obtained enough time to unearth details regarding the transactions and also the other persons who would have involved in the incident, if any. Retrieving of the money and the electronic documents concerning the transactions also could have done by the investigating agency. For those things enough time was obtained to the investigating agency and at this belated stage, that cannot be cited as a reason for denying bail to the petitioner. Of course, the petitioner was abroad and upon his arrival home only he could be arrested by the police. Therefore his availability during investigation and trial has to be ensured if he is granted bail. Taking all such aspects into account, I am of the view that the petitioner can be granted bail by imposing strict conditions.

8.Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The petitioner is granted bail on his executing a bond for Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs only), with two solvent sureties each for the like amount , to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court, subject to the following conditions:

i) The petitioner shall surrender his passport before the jurisdictional court;

ii) The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer every Monday between 2.00 p.m and 3.00 p.m and also as and when so directs by the Investigating Officer until further orders;

iii) The petitioner shall not leave the State of Kerala without permission from the jurisdictional court.

iv) During the bail period, he shall not get involved in any offence; and v) He shall not try to tamper the evidence or contact or try to intimidate the victim