Accused Nos.2 and 3 in Crime No.1145 of 2013 of the Perumbavoor Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Secs.406, 409 and 420 r/w Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code, apprehend arrest and have filed this application.
2. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application.
It is submitted that the first accused who is husband of the second accused collected Rs.12,00,000/- from the de facto complainant at Saudi Arabia on a promise to start a joint business and as part of that, the second accused received Rs.12,00,000/- from the de facto complainant on 21.01.2012 while the third accused received Rs.6,00,000/- on 01.12.2012. Neither was the joint business started nor the money returned. Thus the offences, it is alleged.
3. Learned counsel submits that the allegations are not true. According to the learned counsel, the second accused is a doctor. No scrap of paper is produced to show that any such amount was received by any of the accused Nos.2 and 3 from the de facto complainant.
4. In the nature of the allegations made and having regard to the circumstances, I am inclined to think that custodial interrogation of these accused is not required. At the same time, interest of the de facto complainant has to be ensured. Hence I am inclined to allow the request but subject to conditions.
The application is allowed as under:
(i) Accused Nos.2 and 3 shall surrender before the officer investigating Crime No.1145 of 2013 of the Perumbavoor Police Station on 07.07.2014 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 accused Nos.2 and 3 on other day/days and time as may be specified by him which the accused Nos.2 and 3 shall comply.
(iii) Accused Nos.2 and 3 shall co- operate with the investigation of the case.
(iv) In case accused Nos.2 and 3 are arrested, they shall be produced before the jurisdictional magistrate the same day.
(v) On such production accused Nos.2 and 3 shall be released on bail (if not required to be detained otherwise) on their executing bond for `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 accused Nos.2 and 3.
(b) Accused Nos.2 and 3 shall file affidavit before the learned magistrate while executing the bail bond detailing the immovable properties they own and undertaking that they will not dispose of or encumber the said properties until the proceedings are culminated or otherwise permitted by the learned magistrate.
(c) Accused Nos.2 and 3 shall file attested copy of the said affidavit before the Registrar concerned within two weeks from the date of their executing the bail bonds.
(d) Accused Nos.2 and 3 shall report to the Investigating Officer as and when required for interrogation.
(e) Accused Nos.2 and 3 shall not get involved in any offence during the period of this bail.
(f) Accused Nos.2 and 3 shall not intimidate or influence the witnesses.
(g) In case accused Nos.2 and 3 violate any of condition Nos.(c) to (f), it is open to the investigating officer to move the learned magistrate for cancellation of the bail as held in P.K Shaji Vs. State of Kerala (AIR 2006 SC 100).
Sbna True Copy Sd/-
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE.
P A to Judge