O R D E R

Dated this the 5th day of August, 2021 The petitioner is the de facto complainant in Crime No.77/2021 of Piravom Police Station, which is registered for offences punishable under Sections 420 and 408 r/w Section 34 of IPC.

2. Petitioner is the proprietor of the financial institution named 'Right View Finance' and engaged in the business of money lending on the basis of pledging of gold ornaments. The 1st accused was an employee of the aforesaid financial institution and conducting business in the absence of the petitioner. The 2nd accused is the husband of the 1st accused. The accused allegedly misappropriated gold ornaments and pledged the same in different financial institutions and thereby cheated the petitioner. The police recovered 304 grams of gold ornaments and produced the same before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Piravom. CMP No.133/2021 was filed by the petitioner for interim release of the gold ornaments under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. Th Muthoot Fincorp also filed CMP No.162/2021 for release of gold weighing 23.620 grams. Vide common order, both the applications were allowed, but the petitioner is aggrieved by the condition that he shall execute a bond for Rs.20 lakhs with two solvent sureties and also shall furnish a security of bank guarantee for Rs.15 lakhs before the court. The petitioner states that he will not be able to furnish a bank guarantee because he is doing the business of pledging of gold and receiving gold for pledging and the gold belong to the customers to whom he is answerable and they may demand that gold and therefore the condition that he has to execute a bank guarantee for Rs.15 lakhs is totally unreasonable and seeks indulgence of this Court to interfere with that condition imposed by the Jurisdictional court vide Annexure A1 common order.

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

4. The accused in this case have admittedly no claim over the gold ornaments. The petitioner has been asked to furnish a huge amount as bank guarantee, but I find that the said condition is totally untold there because the gold belongs to the customers and the petitioner is answerable to them and they may demand that gold ornaments. Hence the imposition of condition No.2 is totally unreasonable and therefore condition No.2 is deleted.

The Crl.M.C is allowed as above.