These applications are preferred by the petitioners, son and father, accused in Crime Nos.358 of 2014, 357 of 2014 and 1117 of 2013 respectively, of the Mattannoor Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioners apprehend arrest.
2. The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the applications. It is submitted that the petitioners/petitioner, claiming to be representing the Samsung Mobile Company, along with others collected `4.5 lakhs in crime No.358 of 2014, `9.85 lakhs in crime No.357 of 2014 and `5.70 lakhs in crime No.1117 of 2013 from the respective de facto complainants offering attractive returns and cheated them.
3. Learned counsel submits that the allegations against the petitioner/petitioners are not true. It is submitted that the first petitioner in B.A.Nos.2859 & 2871 of 2014 was duped by certain persons on the belief that they would be able to get the second petitioner in B.A.Nos.2859 & 2871 of 2014 around them at a time when he obtained around `40 lakhs by acquisition of his property. Learned counsel submitted that a police officer is also involved.
4. A Division Bench of this Court by order dated 22.03.2014 in W.P.(C) No.12271 of 2014 directed enquiry into the complaint against the police officer. It is also submitted that the first petitioner in B.A.Nos.2859 & 2871 of 2014 (petitioner in B.A.No.2998/14) was arrested in a few other case and the learned magistrate granted bail to him on his production before the learned magistrate.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor in response has submitted that the contentions raised by the learned counsel are not correct.
6. The petitioners/petitioner have raised certain contentions in their bail applications. I need not go into the truth of the said allegations.
7. But in the nature and circumstances of the case, considering the direction the Division bench of this Court has issued in the order aforesaid and bearing in mind that learned magistrate has granted regular bail to one of the petitioners. I am inclined to think that the petitioners could be granted relief but subject to conditions so that the investigation of the cases is not affected.
The applications are allowed as under :
1. Petitioner/petitioners shall surrender before the officer(s) investigating Crime Nos.358 of 2014, 357 of 2014 and 1117 of 2013 on 16.06.2014 at about 10 am for interrogation.
2. In case interrogation is not completed that day, the petitioner/petitioners shall appear before the officer(s) investigating the case on any other day/days as directed by the investigating officer.
3. The petitioner/petitioners shall co- operate with investigation of the case.
4. In case the petitioner/petitioners are arrested, he/they shall be produced in all the aforesaid cases before the jurisdictional magistrate on the same day.
5. On such production the petitioner/petitioners shall be released (if not required to be detained otherwise) on his/their executing bond for `20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) each 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/petitioners.
b. Petitioner/petitioners shall report to the investigating officer(s) on every alternate Saturday between 4 p.m. and 5 p.m. for a period of two months or until filing of the final report whichever is earlier.
c. Petitioner/petitioners shall report to the investigating officer(s) as and when required for interrogation.
d. Petitioner/petitioners shall not influence or intimidate any of the witnesses.
e. In case any of conditions Nos.(b) to (d) is violated, it is open to the investigating officer 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].
AMV THOMAS P. JOSEPH JUDGE