Petitioner is accused in Crime No.122 of 2014 of the Koduvally Police station for the offences punishable under Secs.415, 420, 421 and 422 of the Indian Penal Code, apprehends arrest and has filed the application. 2. The application is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the defacto complainant. It is submitted that the petitioner who was engaged in business in online UPS production and sale through his company, gave a promise to the defacto complainant that the products of the defacto complainant could be sold by taking licence in the name of the company of the petitioner. On that assurance, the defacto complainant gave a total of Rs.14,00,000/-. The petitioner earned profits to the tune of Rs.2 crores and was liable to pay Rs.1 crore to the defacto complainant but paid only Rs.3,49,000/- . Without payment of the balance amount, the petitioner closed down the business and cheated the defacto complainant.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner engaged the defacto complainant as a canvassing agent for his company receiving Rs.3,00,000/- by way of cheque as security. The defacto complainant could not canvass any order for long time. He could canvass only some orders. Thereon, the petitioner and the defacto complainant agreed to stop canvassing agency. Certain amounts were paid to the defacto complainant. While so, the defacto complainant trespassed into the company of the petitioner and extorted Rs.2,00,000/-. On the complaint of the petitioner, the Ernakulam Town North Police registered Crime No.1679 of 2009 against the defacto complainant. The petitioner filed O.S. No.918 of 2009 in the Munsiff Court, Ernakulam and obtained an ex-parte decree for injunction against the defacto complainant trespassing into the company of the petitioner. According to the learned counsel what is involved is only a civil dispute between the parties.
Having heard both sides, I am inclined to think that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. Hence I am inclined to grant relief to the petitioner but subject to conditions.
The application is allowed as under:
1. Petitioner shall surrender before the officer investigating Crime No.122 of 2014 of the Koduvally Police station on 30.05.2014 at 10.00 am for interrogation.
2. In case interrogation of the petitioner is not completed that day, it is open to the investigating officer to direct presence of the petitioner on any other day/days and time which the petitioner shall comply.
3. Petitioner shall co-operate with investigation of the case.
4. Petitioner shall produce all the relevant records which are in his custody, control and possession and as may be required by the investigating officer.
5. In case arrest of the petitioner is recorded, he shall be produced before the jurisdictional magistrate the same day.
6. On such production learned magistrate shall release the petitioner on bail (if not required to be detained otherwise) on his executing bond for Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned magistrate and subject to the following conditions:
a) one of the sureties shall be a close relative of the petitioner.
b) Petitioner shall report to the investigating officer on every alternate Saturday between 10.00 am and 12.00 pm for a period of two months or until filing of the final report, whichever is earlier.
c) Petitioner shall report to the investigating officer as and when required for interrogation.
d) Petitioner shall not intimidate or influence the witnesses.
e) In case any of condition nos.(b) to (d) is violated, it is open to the investigating officer or the defacto complainant to file application before the learned magistrate for cancellation of the bail granted hereby, as held in P.K. Shaji V. State of Kerala (AIR 2006 SC 100).
Sd/-
THOMAS P. JOSEPH JUDGE /True Copy / NS P.A. To Judge