Petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 2. Petitioner is the 2nd accused in Crime No.2181/2014 of the Kuruppampady Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Section 392 read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 13 and 17 of the Kerala Money-Lenders Act, 1958.
3. It is alleged that the first accused was conducting money lending business without any license and he lend an amount of ₹2,00,000/- for unconscionable interest to the de-facto complainant. At the time of such lending, a cheque for ₹2.5 lakhs and another cheque for ₹1.5 lakhs and also two signed stamp papers were obtained from the defacto complainant by the first accused. Even though the defacto complainant had returned an amount of ₹2,10,000/-, the first accused had demanded an amount of ₹1.5 lakhs more towards interest. As the said demand was not heeded to, the first accused along with the petitioner, by force, took away the mini lorry bearing registration No.KL-17-B-7661 of the defacto complainant on 29.08.2014 at 9.30 pm.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that even though the mini lorry was allegedly robbed on 29.08.2014, the matter was informed to the Police only on 16.09.2014.
6. It seems that the case records show that the lorry was recovered from the premises of the first accused. At the same time, the defacto complainant has not explained as to how this much delay had occurred in launching the prosecution steps on a serious allegation like this.
7. Through order dated 21.10.2014, this Court had granted anticipatory bail to the first accused. There is no reason to deny the said benefit to the present petitioner also. Considering the litigations pending between the parties relating to the said matter and the present stage of the investigation, I do not think that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for the continued investigation of this case. Considering the delay in launching the prosecution, this Court is of the view that this is a fit case in which anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner.
9. In the result, this bail application is allowed and the investigating officer or such other police officer, who is conducting the arrest of the petitioner, is directed to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest on executing a bond for ₹25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the officer conducting arrest, and subject to the following terms and conditions:-
(i) The petitioner shall report before the investigating officer in between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. on all Tuesdays and Fridays, commencing from 16.12.2014 for a period of three months or till the filing of the final report in this case, whichever is earlier.
(ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses.
(iii) The petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation as and when required by the investigating officer.
(iv) The petitioner shall not involve in any offence while on bail.
It is made clear that the violation of any of the conditions stipulated above will result in the cancellation of bail.
Sd/ B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE dl // True Copy // PA to Judge