Petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.448 of 2014 of the Ambalapuzha Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, apprehends arrest and has filed the application.
2. Application is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor. It is submitted that the petitioner and others were running a kuri, de facto complainant and others remitted subscription but the kuri was stopped, the amount was not repaid and the de facto complainant and others were cheated. A total of Rs.1,18,375/- is due to the de facto complainant and similarly placed subscribers.
3. Learned counsel submits that the allegations are not true. Several cases were registered against the petitioner and in some cases he was arrested and detained for several days.
4. Having heard both sides, I am inclined to grant relief to the petitioner but subject to conditions and protecting interest of the de facto complainant and other similarly placed persons as well.
Application is allowed as under:
(i) Petitioner shall surrender before the Officer investigating Crime No.448 of 2014 of the Ambalapuzha Police Station on 09.06.2014 at 10 a.m for interrogation.
(ii) 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.
(iii) In case arrest of the petitioner is recorded, he 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 his 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 deposit Rs. 60,000/- (Rupees sixty thousand only) in a Nationalized Bank in his name initially for a period of two years (renewable as per order of the learned magistrate) and produce the FD receipt before the learned magistrate while executing the bail bond.
(c) In case the case is decided against the petitioner and he is made liable to pay compensation to the defacto complainat or any other person in the case, such compensation could be realized from the amount in deposit to the extent possible.
(d) Petitioner shall report to the officer investigating the case as and when required for interrogation.
(e) Petitioner shall not get involved in similar offence during the period of this bail.
(f) Petitioner shall not intimidate or influence the witnesses.
(v) It is made clear that in case any of condition Nos. (d) to (f) is violated, it is open to the Investigating Officer 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