C.S.Dias, J
1. The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the first accused in Crime No.881/2023 of Aranmula Police Station, Pathanamthitta, registered against the petitioner and his wife alleging them to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 read with Section 21, 4 read with Section 22 and 5 read with Section 23 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019. The petitioner’s arrest was recorded on 23.11.2023.
2. The gist of the prosecution case, is that: the accused Nos 1 & 2 were conducting a finance company at Aranmula and the first accused dishonestly induced the de-facto complainant to deposit an amount of Rs.10,00,000/-, promising to pay interest at the rate of 10%; but the accused failed to pay the interest and refused to return the principal amount. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.
3. Heard; Sri. V. Philip Mathews, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Neema T.V., the learned Senior Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusation levelled against him. There were other cases registered against the petitioner. The petitioner was granted bail in all the other cases as per Annexure-A3 common order passed by this Court on 19.12.2023. The investigation in the case has been completed and the petitioner’s further detention is unnecessary. The petitioner is willing to abide by any stringent condition imposed by this Court. Hence, the application may be allowed.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She contended that notwithstanding the petitioner was granted bail by Annexure-A3 order in the other cases, the investigation in the present case is still in progress. The petitioner is also involved in various other crimes. Therefore, if the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood of him committing an offence of the similar nature. Hence, the application may be dismissed.
6. Indisputably, the petitioner was originally arrested in the first crime on 15.09.2023 and his arrest was formally recorded in the present crime on 23.11.2023. This Court has granted the petitioner bail in 12 cases of the similar nature by Annexure-A3 order on 19.12.2023. The investigation in the case is practically complete. The petitioner’s further detention is unnecessary. Therefore, I am of the definite view that the petitioner is to be released on bail; but subject to stringent conditions.
In the result, the application is allowed, by directing the petitioner to be released on bail on her executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction, which shall be subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every alternate Saturdays between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m for a period of one month or till the final report is laid, whichever is earlier.
(ii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or procure to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any Police Officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner, whatsoever;
(iii) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while he is on bail;
(iv) The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, before the court below at the time of execution of the bond. If he has no passport, he shall file an affidavit to the effect before the court below on the date of execution of the bond;
(v) In case of violation of any of the conditions mentioned above, the jurisdictional court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation of bail, if any filed, and pass orders on the same, in accordance with law.
(vi)Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall be moved and entertained by the court below.
(vii)Needless to mention, it would be well within the powers of the Investigating Officer to investigate the matter and, if necessary, to effect recoveries on the information, if any, given by the petitioner even while the petitioner is on bail as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal v. State of Delhi and Anr.[2020 (1) KHC 663].
