B.A.Nos.3488 and 3500 of 2014 are filed by accused Nos.1 and 2, in Crime No.165 of 2014 of the Nedumkandam Police Station for the offences punishable under Secs.420, 465, 467, 468, 473, 474, 452, 506(ii) r/w Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code, Sec.17 of the Kerala Money Lenders Act and Sec.4 of the Kerala Prohibition of Exorbitant Interest Act. B.A.No.3489 of 2014 is filed by the petitioner in B.A.No.3488 of 2014 apprehending arrest in Crime No.158 of 2014 of the Nedumkandam Police Station and Secs.17 and 13 of the Kerala Money Lenders Act r/w Sec.34 of the Penal Code.
2. The applications are opposed by the learned Public Prosecutors.
3. So far as Crime No.165 of 2014 is concerned, it is alleged that accused Nos.1 and 2 who had not obtained license for money lending had lent certain amount to the de facto complainant and though, said amount with interest was repaid, they demanded further amount. On the date of the occurrence, they trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant and threatened him. A suit was caused to be filed in the name of the third accused in the Munsiff's Court, Thodupuzha.
4. So far as Crime No.158 of 2014 is concerned, it is argued that the petitioner is engaged in money lending without license. The de facto complainant had availed loan of Rs.1,00,000/- from the petitioner and an agreement was also executed in the name of the petitioner. Petitioner is demanding exorbitant interest.
5. Learned counsel submits that the allegations are not true. It is submitted that accused Nos.1 and 2 have no role in the alleged transactions. According to the learned counsel, de facto complainant had some transaction with the third accused who filed suit for recovery of money. It is also pointed out that the third accused in Crime No.165 of 2014 was granted relief by this Court. The third accused filed suit against the de facto complainant in Crime No.165 of 2014 for recovery of money.
6. Having regard to the circumstances, a direction was issued to the third accused to surrender before the investigating officer and to seek regular bail from the jurisdictional magistrate. That cannot be applied to the facts of the case in Crime No.165 of 2014 so far as the petitioners in B.A.Nos.3488 and 3500 of 2014 are concerned. They are alleged to have threatened the de facto complainant demanding exorbitant amount. The request for pre-arrest bail cannot be allowed.
7. So far as the claim in B.A.No.3489 of 2014 is concerned, having regard to the nature of allegations, I am inclined to issue directions.
Resultantly the applications are disposed of as under:
I B.A.No.3488 and 3500 of 2014:
These applications are dismissed leaving it open to the petitioners to surrender before the investigating officer in case they are so advised.
II B.A.No.3489of 2014:
Petitioner is directed to surrender before the officer investigating Crime No.158 of 2014 of the Nedumkandam Police Station on 03.06.2014 at 10 a.m for interrogation.
iii In case interrogation is not completed that day, it is open to the officer concerned to direct presence of the petitioner on other day/days and time as may be specified by him which the petitioner shall comply.
iv In case arrest of the petitioner is recorded, he shall be produced before the jurisdictional magistrate the same day.
v On such production the petitioner shall be released on bail (if not required to be detained otherwise) on his executing bond for `15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned magistrate and subject to the following conditions:
(a) Petitioner shall report to the Investigating Officer as and when required for interrogation.
(b) Petitioner shall not get involved in any offence during the period of this bail.
(c) Petitioner shall not engage in money lending business without license.
(d) Petitioner shall not intimidate or influence the witnesses.
(e) In case the petitioner violates any of condition Nos.(a) to (d), 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