The petitioner is the 3rd accused in Crime No.354 of 2014 of Balussery Police Station, Kozhkode, which has been registered for the offences under Sections 120B and 420 IPC, Section 17 of the Kerala Money Lenders Act and Section 4 of the Chit Funds Act, 1982. The petitioner was one of the directors of the chit Company. The de facto complainant lodged with the police a complaint alleging that accused 1 and 2 committed the offences under section 120B and 420 IPC, Section 17 of the Money Lenders Act and Section 4 of the Chit Funds Act. Later the police made the petitioner also an accused in the case because he happened to be a director of the Company. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the 1st and 2nd accused made him a director of the Company by committing fraud upon him and when he discovered the illegal business of 1st and 2nd accused he resigned as a director and reported the illegal business to the Registrar of Companies. According to him, he has been arrayed as an accused without any foundation. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
3. The 1st and 2nd accused were directors of the chit Company.
The petitioner was made a director in the place of the second accused, who is the wife of the 1st accused. The de facto complainant informed the police on 17.5.2014 that the 1st and 2nd accused committed the offences mentioned above and he has been cheated. In the statement it is specifically alleged that the petitioner also was a victim of the illegal activities of the 1st and 2nd accused. But he also has been made an accused by the police. Annexure-A4 shows that about three months before the registration of the case the petitioner resigned as a director. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner informed the Registrar of Companies about the illegal business conducted by the 1st and 2nd accused appears to be true. Annexure-A5 is a copy of the letter received by the petitioner from the Registrar of Companies. It appears that there may be some truth in the allegation of the petitioner. The correctness of his allegation can be ascertained only in a detailed investigation. But in view of the facts disclosed above I am inclined to grant his prayer.
4. In the result, this application is allowed with the following conditions:
a) The petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum if he is arrested by the Police in connection with this case.
b) He shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation if he is so required by him in writing.
c) He shall not commit any economic offences while he is on bail.
d) He shall not destroy or tamper with evidence.
e) He shall co-operate with the investigation.
f) This order is not applicable if the petitioner chooses to surrender before the Magistrate concerned and in such case the learned Magistrate may take appropriate action in accordance with the law.
cms K.ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE