Petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 2. The petitioner is the 1st accused in Crime No.1839 of 2014 of Kunnamkulam Police Station, Thrissur District pending investigation for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 342, 323, 394, 365 and 34 IPC, Sections 3 and 4 of the Kerala Money Lenders Act and Section 3 of the Exorbitant Interest Act, 2012.
3. It is alleged that the defacto complainant had borrowed an amount of ₹9,00,000/- from the petitioner, who is a money lender, through an agreement. The interest fixed was ₹90,000/- per month. According to the defacto complainant, the said interest at the rate of ₹90,000/- was being regularly paid for the period up to three months prior to the date of incident in this case. As he could not continue to pay such an exorbitant rate of interest, he stopped the payment and told the petitioner that he would not pay any interest and he would discharge the liability by paying the principal amount. He repaid an amount of ₹2,00,000/-.
4. On 07.08.2014 by about 3 p.m., while the defacto complainant was traveling by a car with an amount of ₹ 1,50,000/- in a suit case, the petitioner along with three other persons came by a Fortuner car and obstructed the car being driven by the defacto complainant. The said three persons came out of the car, dragged down the driver and one of them occupied the driver’s seat. Two other persons sat on either side of the defacto complainant in the rear seat. Thereafter, harassment started and the defacto complainant was severely beaten up and the amount of ₹ 1,50,000/- from the suitcase of the defacto complainant was snatched away. Thereafter, when the car reached at Changaramkulam, the Fortuner car being driven by the petitioner overtook the said car and stopped it there. The three persons, who entered in the car of the defacto complainant, got out, occupied the car of the petitioner and they drove away after exerting a threat that similarly his wife and children would also be abducted, if amounts are not paid.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor perused the CD.
6. The contents of the CD prima facie reveal the complicity of the petitioner. The allegations against the petitioner are very grave and serious. The investigation of this case is not over. It seems that the continued investigation has revealed that even the driver of the defacto complainant had changed sides and he was also instrumental in paving way for the abduction. The driver of the defacto complainant has also been made an accused at present. Considering the seriousness of the allegations against the petitioner and the present stage of the investigation, I am satisfied that this is not a fit case wherein anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner.
7. In the result, this bail application is dismissed. At the same time, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks for an opportunity to petitioner to surrender before the investigating officer and to co-operate with the investigation. If so advised, the petitioner may surrender before the investigating officer within ten days from today and co- operate with the investigation. On such surrender, immediately after interrogation, he shall be produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate. In case advance notice is served on the Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate shall dispose of the application for bail, if any filed, preferably on the same day itself.
DSV/05/11 // True Copy // Sd/-
B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE P.A. To Judge