Petitioner is third accused in Crime No.429 of 2014 of the Veeyapuram Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 3 & 4 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act 1978, apprehends arrest and has filed the application. 2. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application.
It is submitted that accused 1 and 2, with the finance provided by the petitioner are running Queen Mary Chits, Payippad and conducting chitty business without obtaining registration. Petitioner is also involved in Crime No.541 of 2014 of the Parippally Police Station for offence under the Chity Act.
3. Learned senior Advocate submits that allegations against the petitioner are not true. Petitioner has no connection with accused 1 and 2 or Queen Mary Chits, Payippad. He has not financed any amount to the accused 1 and 2. The petitioner was conducting a chitty at Parippally. Crime No.541 of 2014 is registered in connection with that. Petitioner has settled all his claims arising from that case. The second accused was a one time employee of the petitioner. Later, he started his own business. Petitioner happened to give his car to the second accused and as the said vehicle was having finance liability, registration could not be changed the name of the second accused. For that reason alone the petitioner is implicated in the present case. A further submission learned senior Advocate has made is that even if it is accepted that chitty is being conducted without obtaining registration, that would not attract any offence under the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act. Learned senior Advocate has also offered that the petitioner would file affidavit before the jurisdictional magistrate that accused 1 and 2 or any other person having transaction with Queen Mary Chits, Payippad do not owe any amount to the petitioner.
4. In the circumstances above stated, I am inclined to think that the petitioner could be granted relief, but he must be made available for interrogation by the Police.
The application is disposed of as under :
1. Petitioner shall surrender before the completed that day, the petitioner shall appear before the officer investigating the case on any other day/days and time as directed by the investigating officer.
3. It is open to the petitioner to produce all the relevant records in his custody, control and possession to the officer investigating the case and relating to the matter of investigation.
4. In case the petitioner is arrested, he shall be produced before the jurisdictional magistrate the same day.
5. On such production the petitioner shall be released on bail (if not required to be detained otherwise) on executing bond for `20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) with two sureties each for the like sum each before the jurisdictional magistrate and subject to the following conditions:
a. One of the sureties shall be a close relative of the petitioner.
b. Petitioner shall as offered file affidavit before the learned magistrate while executing the bail bond that no amount is due to him from the accused 1 and 2 in connection with the business run by Queen Mary Chits, Payippad and that no amount is due to the petitioner from any other person transacting business through Queen Mary Chits, Payppad.
c. Petitioner shall report to the investigating officer as and when required for interrogation.
d. Petitioner shall not engage in money lending business or chitty transaction except with permission/registration obtained from the appropriate authorities.
e. Petitioner shall not influence or intimidate any of the witnesses.
f. Petitioners shall not get involved in any offence during the period of this bail.
g. In case any of conditions Nos.(b) to (f) is violated, it is open to the investigating officer to file application before the learned magistrate for cancellation of the bail granted hereby, as held in P.K.Shaji v.State of Kerala [AIR 2006 SC 100].
AMV sd/- THOMAS P. JOSEPH JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE