The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.1140/2012 of Sooranad Police Station, for offences registered under Section 420 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 17 of the Kerala Money Lender's Act. The gist of the allegation is that on 23.8.2006, the petitioner dishonestly induced the defacto complainant to join the chitty illegally conducted by the petitioner. That the lady defacto complainant joined the petitioner's chitty for an amount of Rs. 25,000/- and when she demanded for payment of the chitty amount, the petitioner paid only Rs.17,500/- after unlawfully withholding an amount of Rs.7,500/- as commission. Thereafter, the defacto complainant demanded a further amount of Rs. 25,000/- for business purpose from the petitioner and that the petitioner had given Rs. 6,250/- to her after deducting amounts due towards commission in the previous chitty transaction. The defacto complainant had given a blank cheque as security to the petitioner and that the petitioner by using the cheque of the defacto complainant, had filed a false case against the defacto complainant alleging offence under the Negotiable Instruments Act, it is averred. 2. The petitioner's case is that the defacto complainant had borrowed an amount of Rs. 40,000/- from the petitioner and issued a cheque and that for dishonour of that amount, the petitioner was constrained to file a private criminal complaint alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which led to the institution of the summary trial case as S.T.No.1271/2010 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Sasthamkotta. That the defacto complainant has set in motion the aforementioned crime only as counter blast to the private complaint the petitioner had initiated in S.T.No.1271/2010, which is now posted for evidence. It is further submitted that even as per the version of the defacto complainant, the transaction allegedly has taken place as early as on 23.8.2006 and the complaint has been given by the defacto complainant only as late as on 23.7.2014 without giving any cogent explanation for such a long delay. It is accordingly prayed that the relief of pre-arrest bail may be granted to the petitioner.
3. The learned Public Prosecutor would submit that one of the main allegations against the petitioner is that he was conducting chitty without having a valid licence under the statutory provisions governing the field and that the investigating officer has conducted search of the premises of the petitioner and could not seize any incriminating documents from the petitioner. The Prosecutor would further fairly submit that in case this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, the same may be hedged with sufficient safeguards to protect the interests of the prosecution.
4. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and on a consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to order and allow the plea of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in this case subject to necessary conditions, so as to protect the bonafide interests of the prosecution. Accordingly, it is ordered that in the event of the arrest of the petitioner herein in connection with the above said crime, he shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs. 35,000/- (rupees thirty five thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the investigating officer in the above crime and subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, before the jurisdictional Magistrate concerned within 3 days from the execution of the bail bond before the Investigating Officer and if the petitioner is not a holder of passport, then he shall file an affidavit to that effect in the said court. If the petitioner requires his passport in connection with his travel abroad, then he is free to approach the court below concerned for the release of the same and for necessary permission in that regard. In case such an application is filed, the trial court or the jurisdictional Magistrate concerned, as the case may be, is free to consider the same on merits and to pass appropriate orders thereon, taking necessary guidance from the principles laid down in the decision of this Court in the case Asok Kumar v. State of Kerala, reported in 2009 (2) KLT 712, notwithstanding the aforementioned conditions imposed by this Court.
(ii) The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer in the above said crime between 10 a.m. and 11 a.m. on every alternate Sundays.
(iii) The petitioner shall not involve in any criminal offence of similar or graver in nature.
(iv) The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and report before the investigating officer as and when required.
(v) The petitioner shall not influence the witnesses or shall not tamper or attempt to tamper evidence in any manner whatsoever.
If the petitioner violates any of the conditions as ordered above, then the bail granted to him is liable to be cancelled.
With the above said directions, the Application stands finally disposed of.
Sd/-
sdk+ ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.S. to Judge