The court ruled that custodial interrogation is not necessary when allegations may be civil in nature and the accused cooperates with the investigation.

ORDER

The application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 , ( for short, ‘Code’) for an order of pre-arrest bail.

2. The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.210/2024 of the Sasthamcotta Police Station, Kollam, which is registered against him for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code .

3. The prosecution allegation is that, the accused, who was working as the Supervisor of the Ayush Industries which belongs to the son of the de facto complainant, with an intention to cheat the son of the de facto complainant had between the period from 02.12.2023 to 18.01.2024 did not properly account for Rs.32,73,981/-, made a shortage of 32 water tanks having a value of Rs.9,76,000/- and had taken Rs.30,000/- towards the salary of a Security Guard, whom he did not engage, and thus cheated the de facto complainant’s son Rs.42,79,981/-. Accordingly, the accused has committed the above offences.

4. Heard; Sri.S.Muhammed Haneeff, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.C.S.Hrithwik, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor and Sri. S.Sreekumar, the learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant/intervenor.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. The petitioner and the de facto complainant are brothers-in- law. The alleged owner of the Ayush Industries is the nephew of the petitioner. The petitioner was managing the affairs of the said establishment for the last three years. The petitioner had borrowed some money from the de facto complainant’s son and executed sale deeds in his favour as security. It is towards the sale consideration of the deeds, Rs.34,96,000/- was given to the petitioner. There are litigations pending between the parties before the Court of Munsiff, Sasthamcotta. Differences of opinion arose in the management of the establishment. Then, the de facto complainant’s son filed W.P.(C)No.2147/2024 before this Court for an order for police protection. In the said writ petition, he has not made any such allegation as alleged in Annexure A1 FIR. It is after the passing of Annexure A8 judgment, on 02.02.2024 that the present FIR has been registered making all false allegations. The petitioner is a heart and a renal patient. The petitioner has undergone a bypass surgery and a kidney transplantation surgery. The petitioner is a senior citizen and is a law abiding citizen without any criminal antecedents. Pursuant to Section 41A Cr.P.C . notice issued by the Investigating Officer, the petitioner appeared before him on 28.3.2024 and his interrogation has been completed. Subsequently, by order dated 16.4.2024, this Court granted the petitioner an interim order of bail. Even though this Court directed the Investigating Officer to issue notice under Section 41A, if the petitioner’s further interrogation is necessary, no notice was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner is willing to co-operate with the Investigating Officer. Therefore, the application may be allowed.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. He submitted that the investigation is in progress. Nonetheless, he did not dispute the fact that Section 41A notice was issued to the petitioner on 28.3.2024 and he had appeared before him. But, he submitted that the petitioner did not co-operate with the investigation. Nevertheless, he conceded that after the interim order of bail was passed by this Court on 16.4.2024, no further notice was issued to the petitioner.

The petitioner’s custodial interrogation is necessary for the proper investigation of the crime. Therefore, the application may be dismissed.

7. The learned counsel for the intervenor also opp