The 6th accused in Crime No.1086 of 2013 of the Tirurangadi Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 363 and 395 of the Indian Penal Code apprehends arrest and has filed the application. 2. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application.
It is submitted that on 20.10.2013 at about 11.40 a.m. while the de facto complainant was traveling in a bus and the bus was stopped at a bus stop, accused Nos.1 to 3 who came in a car, along with accused Nos.4 and 5 who were traveling the same bus forcibly took the de facto complainant in that car, assaulted him and `9,00,000/- was forcibly taken from him. Accused Nos.1 and 5 were arrested and questioned when they revealed that money was handed over to the petitioner who is (said to be) leader of the gang. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the sum of `9,00,000/- was entrusted to the de facto complainant by his neighbour to be handed over to the manager of Khadeeja Fabrics, Chemmad.
3. Learned counsel submits that the allegations are not true. The de facto complainant had financial transactions with the petitioner and owned money to the petitioner. To avoid payment, such false allegations are raised.
4. The matter is requires thorough investigation. It is to be looked into in what manner the de facto complainant (allegedly) was in possession of `9,00,000/-. Version of the de facto complainant that he was to hand over the money to the manager of Khadeeja Fabrics, and if so under what circumstance are also to be looked into. The police should not be satisfied with a peripheral investigation into merely what the de facto complainant alleged and conclude the investigation. All aspects including nature and character of money allegedly involved is required to be looked into. Grant of pre- arrest bail would affect the investigation. As such request for pre-arrest bail cannot be allowed.
The application is dismissed.
AMV Sd/- THOMAS P. JOSEPH JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE