The petitioner is the 1st accused in Crime No.354/2014 of Balussery Police Station, Kozhikode district, for offences punishable under Sections 120B and 420 of IPC read with Section 17 of the Kerala Money Lenders Act. The crime was registered on the basis of the private complaint filed before the court below, which was forwarded under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. The gist of the prosecution allegation is that the accused, three in number, viz., the petitioner herein and his wife (A2) and one Sreekant (A3) were conducting chitty business in the name, “S.P.Vayshnava Chits Pvt. Ltd., Balussery”, without proper licence and authority and that the aforementioned firm had collected different amounts from different persons making them believe that they have secured valid licence to conduct chitty. The defacto complainant is one of the office assistants and she had also joined the chitty and according to her, the amount was not returned, though she had paid all the instalments. 2. Sri.S.Rajeev, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the allegations emanating from the aforementioned crime are purely related to commercial transactions and that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this crime and that accused No.3 (Sreekant) was granted anticipatory bail by this Court by Annexure II order dated 18.6.2014 in B.A.No.4526/2014 and that the 2nd accused (the petitioner's wife) was also granted anticipatory bail and the petitioner's anticipatory bail application was rejected by this Court, as per Annexure-I order on 4.7.2014 rendered in B.A.No.4762/2014. Sri.S.Rajeev, the learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the petitioner herein was unaware of Annexure-II order rendered on 18.6.2014 granted in favour of A-3, when the petitioner's Annexure-I application was considered by this Court on 4.7.2014 and that he came to know of it only subsequently. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the issuance of Annexure-II order in favour of accused No.3 is thus a development, which came to his knowledge subsequently and therefore, there is material change in the circumstances and that his plea of pre-arrest bail may be allowed, in the interest of justice.
3. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that questioning of the petitioner is necessary for effectuating the smooth and fair conduct of the investigation as the petitioner was mainly responsible for the conduct of the chitty and that, by using registration of one chitty, he was allegedly conducting five other unauthorized chitties. The prosecutor would submit that in case this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, then sufficient safeguards may be made so as to effectuate the proper questioning of the petitioner and that the course of action adopted by this Court in the order dated 15.7.2014 in B.A.No.5030 of 2014, may be taken recourse to, in the interest of justice.
4. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and on evaluation of the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is inclined to adopt the same course of action as the one taken recourse to in the order dated 15.7.2014 in B.A.No.5030/ 2014 to effectuate fair and proper conduct of the investigation, instead of straightaway granting anticipatory bail petitioner. Accordingly, it is ordered that:
(i) The petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer in crime No.354/2014 of Balussery Police Station Station on 6.11.2014 at 10.00 a.m for interrogation.
(ii) In case interrogation as above is not completed that day, it is open to the investigating officer concerned to direct presence of the petitioner on other day/days and time as may be specified in writing by investigating officer, which the petitioner shall comply.
(iii) The petitioner shall fully co-operate with investigation of the case and shall co-operate with the investigating officer for getting necessary records and other documents that may be maintained by him, which are required in connection with the investigation.
(iv) After the interrogation process as abovesaid is complete in its entirety, in case the arrest of the petitioner is recorded by the investigation officer, then the investigating officer shall produce the petitioner before the jurisdictional magistrate on the same day and on such production, the petitioner's bail application shall be considered on the same day and he shall be released on bail on his executing bond for Rs. 35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned jurisdictional Magistrate concerned and subject to any other conditions that may be imposed by the learned Magistrate as are found by him as necessary and just.
(v) In case after the completion of the interrogation as above said, the investigating officer does not record the arrest of the petitioner, then the petitioner shall forthwith, on the same day or on the immediate next working day, shall appear and formally surrender before the jurisdictional Magistrate and his application for bail shall be considered on the same day and granted by the jurisdictional Magistrate on his executing a bond for Rs. 35,000/- (rupees thirty five thousand only) with two solvent sureties each and subject to any other conditions that may be imposed by the learned Magistrate that are found by him just and necessary.
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, this Application stands finally disposed of.
Sd/-
sdk+ ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.S. to Judge