IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN WEDNESDAY, THE 31^ST DAY OF MAY 2023 / 10TH JYAISHTA, 1945 BAIL APPL. NO. 3408 OF 2023 CRIME NO.214/2022 OF PADINJARETHARA POLICE STATION, WAYANAD AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTBAIL APPL. 5736/2022 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2:

NIDHEESH KUMAR AGED 30 YEARS S/O.(LATE) SOMASEKHARAN NAIR, RESIDING AT CHITHIRA HOUSE, THOPPUMPADI P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682005 BY ADVS.

ANOOP.V.NAIR E.ADITHYAN M.SRUTHI DAS AVANTHIKA R.

RESPONDENTS/STATE/COMPLAINANT:

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031

2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER PADINJARAETHARA POLICE STATION PADINJARAETHARA, WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN - 673575 BY SRI.P.G.MANU, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31.05.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Dated this the 31^st day of May, 2023 This is the second anticipatory bail application filed by the second accused in crime No.214/2022 of Padinjarethara police station, Wayanad.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

3. I have perused the relevant documents form part of the case diary placed by the learned Public Prosecutor along with the documents placed by the counsel for the petitioner.

4. The prosecution case is that accused Nos.1 to 4 herein obtained Rs.13,20,000/- from the defacto complainant and his father, offering job to the defacto complainant in Germany. Accused Nos.1 and 2 in this crime are father and son. The specific allegation is that the second accused assured employment to the defacto complainant in Germany. The further allegation is that accused Nos.1 to 5 jointly received the amount and thereafter, the defacto complainant was taken to Russia. When the defacto complainant was asked to go to Russia, he insisted the presence of the second accused also along with him. Accordingly, the second accused also travelled along with the defacto complainant to Russia and thereafter, the second accused threatened the defacto complainant that the defacto complainant would be put to jail in Russia without doing anything to provide job in Germany as offered. At this juncture, the defacto complainant returned back from Russia since the accused herein failed to provide the job as offered. It is alleged further that the accused herein failed to repay the money or even part thereof. On this premise, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Section 420 read with 34 of IPC.

5. While pressing for anticipatory bail to the second accused, the learned counsel for the second accused would submit that the second accused has no role in this occurrence and the entire money was received by the other accused. He also submitted that the defacto complainant and two other persons had given huge amounts to ‘S & S Recruiting Agency’, which had office at Edappally. The said office was run by Sukumaran, Alex and Ullas. Sukumaran is the third accused and Ullas is the 5^th accused in this crime. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the second accused that the second accused also given Rs.13 lakh to Sukumaran through his bank account and since Sukumaran agreed to provide employment to the second accused also in Germany. It is pointed out that there is change in circumstances to canvass anticipatory bail in this matter. In this connection, the learned counsel would submit that the oral dialogues between the defacto complainant and the petitioner contained in the CD produced is relevant and this Court has to hear the same. Highlighting absolute innocence in the above line, the learned counsel for the second accused pressed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, again.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor strongly opposed bail on the submission that the allegations as against all the accused are well made out, prima facie. It is also submitted that money was transferred to the