Petitioners are accused Nos. 1, 3 and 2, respectively in Crime No.271 of 2014 of the Kanhangad Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 420 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, apprehend arrest and have filed the application.
2. Application is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor. It is submitted that the petitioners made the de facto complainant to believe that their Company is engaged in production and marketing of solar products and collected Rs.5,69,000/- from the de facto complainant. He was cheated.
3. Learned counsel submits that the de facto complainant was appointed as franchisee as per agreement dated 25.02.2013. The de facto complainant collected around Rs.6 lakhs from the customers but that was not remitted to the Company.
4. Having regard to the relevant circumstances, I am inclined to think that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required. Hence I am inclined to grant relief to the petitioners but subject conditions and protecting interest of the de facto complainant also.
Application is allowed as under:
(i) Petitioners shall surrender before the Officer investigating Crime No.271 of 2014 of the Kanhangad Police Station on 06.06.2014 at 10 a.m for interrogation.
(ii) In case interrogation is not completed that day, it is open to the officer concerned to direct presence of the petitioners on other day/days and time as may be specified by him which the petitioners shall comply.
(iii) Petitioners can produce all the relevant records in their custody, control and possession before the investigating officer and relating to the matter under investgation.
(iv) In case arrest of the petitioners is recorded, they shall be produced before the jurisdictional magistrate the same day.
(v) On such production, the petitioners shall be released on bail, (if not required to be detained otherwise) on their executing bond for Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) each with two sureties each 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 any of the petitioners.
(b) Petitioners shall deposit the security amount received from the de facto complainant and as shown in the agreement of franchisee in a Nationalized Bank in their name jointly intially for a period of two years (renewable as per order of the learned magistrate) and produce the FD receipt before the learned magistrate while executing the bail bond.
(c) In case the case is decided against the petitioners or any them and they/he are/is made liable to pay compensation to the defacto complainat, such compensation to the extent possible could be realized from the amount in deposit.
(d) Petitioners shall report to the officer investigating the case as and when required for interrogation.
(e) Petitioners shall not get involved in any offence during the period of this bail.
(f) Petitioners shall not intimidate or influence the witnesses.
(vi) It is made clear that in case any of condition Nos. (d) to (f) is violated, it is open to the Investigating Officer to seek cancellation of the bail granted hereby by moving application before the learned magistrate as held in P.K. Shaji V. State of Kerala (AIR 2006 Supreme Court 100).
Sd/-
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.
AS /True Copy/ P.A. to Judge