Petitioner, accused in Crime Nos.32 of 2014 and 1576 of 2013, respectively of the Peroorkada Police Station and wife of the first accused in the aforesaid crime cases, apprehends arrest and has filed the applications.
2. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the applications. It is submitted that the petitioner and the first accused collected Rs.20 lakhs from the de facto complainant in Crime No.1576 of 2013 offering to give attractive returns but cheated them. The Police have registered Crime No.1576 of 2013 for the offences punishable under Section 406, 420, 506 (i) of the Indian Penal Code. In Crime No.32 of 2014, from the de facto complainant and his sister a total of Rs.24 lakhs was collected on similar promise. In that case the offences attributed are under Sections 406, 420 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that it is understood that another case in which the petitioner is involved is being investigated by the CBCID.
3. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is not connected with any of the incidents in the aforesaid crime cases. Learned counsel has taken me through the First Information Statement given in the respective crime. It is pointed out that in Crime No.1576 of 2013 there is only a bald allegation that the petitioner also used to talk to the de facto complainant therein over telephone. In Crime No.32 of 2014 there is no such allegation even. It is also submitted that the money was either received or deposited in the account of the first accused who was arrested on 22.01.2014 and is in custody.
4. Having regard to the circumstances of the cases including nature of allegations made against the petitioner, I am inclined to think that her custodial interrogation is not required. Hence I am inclined to grant relief to the petitioner subject to conditions so that investigation is not required.
Applications are allowed as under:
(i) Petitioner shall surrender before the Officer(s) investigating Crime Nos.32 of 2014 and 1576 of 2013, of the Peroorkada Police Station on 18.06.2014 at 10 a.m for interrogation.
(ii) In case interrogation is not completed that day, it is open to the officer(s) investigating the cases to direct presence of the petitioner on other day/days at reasonable time and place as may be specified by him which the petitioner shall comply.
(iii) In case arrest of the petitioner is recorded, she shall be produced before the jurisdictional magistrate the same day.
(iv) On such production the petitioner shall be released on bail (if not required to be detained otherwise) on her executing bond for Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) 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.
(b) Petitioner shall report to the officer(s) investigating the cases as and when required for interrogation at reasonable time and place.
(c) Petitioner shall not, during the period of this bail get involved in any offence.
(d) Petitioner shall not intimidate or influence the witnesses.
(e) Petitioner shall co-operate with investigation of the case.
(v) It is made clear that in case any of condition Nos. (b) to (e) is violated, it is open to the Investigating Officer(s) 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