Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 814
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J
JAIN K.J – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Bail Appl. 9808/2023
SAIJO HASSAN
Anticipatory bail can be granted if the accused cooperates with the investigation and does not pose a threat to witnesses or evidence.
Headnote:
Bail - Criminal Procedure - IPC Sections 406, 420 - Summary describes the legal provisions of bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure and the implications of sections 406 and 420 of the IPC, focusing on fraudulent misrepresentation and dishonesty, which influenced the court’s decision to grant bail with conditions.
Fact of the Case:
The second accused applied for anticipatory bail fearing arrest related to a fraud case where he allegedly induced someone to invest money with false promises regarding returns, leading to allegations under the IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court recognized that the petitioner had complied with previous bail conditions, thus favoring the request to make the interim bail order absolute while imposing strict conditions to ensure cooperation with the investigation.
Issues: Whether the grant of anticipatory bail is justified in light of the accusations of fraud against the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the alleged charges, while serious, did not warrant immediate arrest if the accused was willing to cooperate with the investigation, thus supporting the issuance of bail under specified conditions.
Final Decision: Bail granted subject to conditions.
Dated this the 20th day of December, 2023 Apprehending arrest in Crime No.1950/2023 of Thrissur Town East Police Station, Thrissur, registered for offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code , the 2nd accused has filed this application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure .
2. The prosecution case is that the 2nd accused who was the Chairman of the 1st accused Housing Development Establishment, collected an amount of Rs.5,88,000/- from the defacto complainant by fraudulently and dishonestly inducing him to believe that the above deposit amount would be returned with interest after three months, and thereafter cheated the defacto complainant by not returning the amount or interest inspite of repeated demands. The other accused are said to be the office bearers of the 1st accused establishment. Thus, the accused are alleged to have committed the offences alleged.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the prosecution allegations are false and the offences against the petitioner will not lie.
4. I have considered the rival contentions.
5. It is seen that this Court had granted an interim order directing the petitioner to surrender before the Investigating Officer within three weeks for subjecting himself to interrogation. It was also directed that, on such surrender, the petitioner shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Prosecutor submitted that pursuant to the above order, the petitioner had appeared before the Investigating Officer as directed and has been released on bail. The said order was in force for four weeks.
7. In such circumstances, I am inclined to pass an order making the earlier interim order absolute, subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall cooperate with the Investigating Officer and shall appear as and when directed by the Investigating Officer.
(ii) The petitioner shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses, tamper with any evidence, or get involved in similar offences while on bail.
(iii) The petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional court.
(iv) In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, notwithstanding the bail having been granted by this Court.
Sd/- MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., JUDGE mtk APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 9808/2023 PETITIONER ANNEXURES THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE BRANCH MANAGER OF THE SOCIETY SRI.
Annexure 1 K.S RAMADAS ON BEHALF OF THE SOCIETY, BEFORE THE SHO, KUZHALMANNAM POLICE STATION DATED 8.4.2023 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE DE FACTO COMPLAINANT BEFORE THE Annexure 2 CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ERNAKULAM AS C.C NO. 324/23 DATED
05.04.2023 THE TRUE COPY OF THE MONEY SUIT FILED BY THE DE FACTO COMPLAINANT BEFORE THE Annexure 3 HON'BLE MUNSIFF'S COURT, PALAKKAD AS O.S NO. 145/23 DATED 19.04.2023 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SUIT FILED BY THE SOCIETY BEFORE THE HON'BLE MUNSIFF'S Annexure 4 COURT, THRISSUR AS O.S NO. 1393/23 DATED
29.05.2023 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.
1950/2023 DATED 01.09.2023 REGISTERED BY Annexure 5 THE SHO, BY THE THRISSUR TOWN EAST POLICE STATION DATED 01.09.2023 . CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR IN CRL.M.C Annexure 6 NO.1430/2023 DATED 06.10.23 IN CRIME NO.
1950 OF 2023 OF THRISSUR TOWN EAST POLICE STATION RESPONDENT ANNEXURES RBI INTIMATION LETTER REF: RBI/CMS/
Annexure A1 N202223023482279/ 2022-23, DATED
12/04/2023 Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF INTIMATION FROM REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE VIDE LETTER REF:
RCS/3962/2023/HV(2), DATED 06/09/2023 Annexure A3 COMPLAINT OF APPLICANT DATED 26/08/2023 TRUE COPY OF SEIZURE MAHASSAR OF Anne
