The petitioner is the accused in crime No.394/2014 of Vythiri Police Station, Wayanad district, for offences under Section 420 of IPC and Sections 17, 18A and 6(a) of the Money Lenders Act read with Section 9 of the Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2013. The allegations against the petitioner are that the lady defacto complainant, one Smt.Saji Joy, had availed an amount of Rs. 58,000/- from the petitioner in the year 2013 on condition to pay an amount of Rs. 5,000/- per month as interest and at the time of giving the loan, the petitioner had demanded blank papers, cheques, deed of her property, which was given to him. That when the defacto complainant defaulted payment of interest, she approached the petitioner with Rs. 65,000/- to clear the loan and at that time the accused demanded Rs. 2 lakhs and threatened her. Subsequently, the petitioner sent lawyers notice demanding Rs. 2 lakhs and accused committed the above said offences. Sri.Jose J.Matheikel, the learned counsel for the petitioner would strongly urge that the allegations raised against the petitioner in the aforementioned crime are absolutely false and that no blank papers, cheques and deed of the defacto complainant's property were entrusted by her with the petitioner and that the stamp paper alleged to be recovered from the house of the petitioner belongs to one Sri.Punchayil Saji Jose, who is the son-in-law of the petitioner herein and that the Sessions Court, while refusing anticipatory bail to the petitioner as per Annexure A3 dated 1.10.2014, had misunderstood the name of the aforementioned Sri.Punchayil Saji Jose in the place of the defacto complainant Smt.Saji Joy, and had thus denied anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Sri.Jose J. Matheikel, learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the fact of the matter is that the families of the accused/petitioner and the defacto complainant were good friends and when the wife of the accused received a housing loan in 2013, the defacto complainant requested her that Rs. 2 lakhs from that amount may be given to her for some days in order to clear off some of her debts and the petitioner's wife, willingly gave that money to the defacto complainant, in order to help the latter. Since the said money was not repaid in time, the defacto complainant issued cheque dated 27.5.2014 and on presentation by the wife of the accused, the same was dishonoured. On request of the defacto complainant, the cheque was re- presented on 25.7.2014 and the same was also again dishonoured on insufficiency of funds. Consequently, a lawyer's notice dated 5.8.2014 was issued by the petitioner's wife to the defacto complainant and since the amount was not paid in statutory time, Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.5112/2014 was filed before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kalpetta, Waynad district, which is pending. On getting information regarding the institution of the aforementioned private complaint for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the present compliant is lodged by the defacto complainant making absolutely false allegations, which has led to the registration of the instant crime No.394/2014. The only connection that the petitioner has with the lady defacto complainant is that the petitioner's wife, who was earlier on friendly terms with the lady defacto complainant, had given the latter a loan amount, which on non-payment, resulted ultimately in a private criminal complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act, which was instituted by the wife of the petitioner against the lady defacto complainant herein. The petitioner has never indulged in money lending activity and he has not committed any of the offences alleged against him. The petitioner apprehends arrest in this crime and accordingly, Sri.Jose J.Matheikel, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the petitioner may be given the relief of pre- arrest bail in this case. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, fairly submits that the investigation is on the verge of completion and that search of the premises of the petitioner was duly conducted in the aforementioned crime and the stamp paper in question was recovered from the house of the petitioner and that it has been revealed in the investigation that the stamp paper is borne in the name of one Sri.Punchayil Saji Jose and is not in the name of the the lady defacto complainant herein, viz., Smt.Saji Joy, Thahnipally. The aforementioned stamp paper has been duly seized as part of the investigation. As the search and seizure for offences relating to the alleged money lending activity is already over and as the search and seizure have revealed that the stamp paper is not in the name of the the defacto complainant herein, Smt.Saji Joy, but in the name of one Sri.Punchayil Saji Jose, and as the investigation is almost at the fag end, this Court is inclined to exercise discretion. Having thus taken into account the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and having given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, it is ordered that in the event of the arrest of the petitioner herein in connection with the above said crime, he shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs. 35,000/- (rupees thirty five thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the investigating officer in the above crime and subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, before the jurisdictional Magistrate concerned within 3 days from the execution of the bail bond before the Investigating Officer and if he is not a holder of passport, he shall file affidavit to that effect in the said court. If the petitioner requires his passport in connection with his travel abroad, then he is free to approach the court concerned for the release of the same and for necessary permission in that regard. In case such an application is filed, the trial court or the jurisdictional Magistrate concerned, as the case may be, is free to consider the same on merits and to pass appropriate orders thereon, taking necessary guidance from the principles laid down in the decision of this Court in the case Asok Kumar v. State of Kerala, reported in 2009 (2) KLT 712, notwithstanding the aforementioned conditions imposed by this Court.
(ii) The petitioner shall not involve in any criminal offence of similar nature or graver in nature.
(iii) The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and report before the investigating officer as and when required.
(iv) The petitioner shall not influence the witnesses or shall not tamper or attempt to tamper evidence in any manner whatsoever.
If the petitioner violates any of the conditions as ordered above, then the bail granted to him is liable to be cancelled.
With the above said directions, this Bail Application stands finally disposed of.
Sd/-
sdk+ ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.S. to Judge