Abdul Rasheed vs State Of Kerala

P.G. Ajithkumar, J.

This is the second application for anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The petitioner is the 2nd accused in Crime No.692 of 2021 of Mala Police Station, Thrissur. The offences alleged are under Sections 406, 420 and 468 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The allegations based on which the crime was registered are the following:

The 1st accused and the de facto complainant knew each other. Accused Nos.1 and 2 received Rs.8,00,000/- from the de facto complainant on giving him an assurance that his wife as well as brother-in-law would be secured job in the Cochin International Airport. Rs.4,00,000/- was paid to the 1st accused on 05.11.2018 at the house of the 1st accused and later Rs.4,00,000/- was transferred to the account of the 2nd accused/petitioner. The accused later gave documents purporting to be the orders of appointment in the Cochin International Airport, which were turned out to be false documents. The accused thereby cheated the de facto complaint and misappropriated the money received from him.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

B.A.No.8663 of 2021 filed by the petitioner was dismissed as per Order dated 17.12.2021 holding that no material exculpating the petitioner from the offence, as he claimed, have been produced. His contention was that it was the 1st accused, who really had committed the offence of cheating not only of the de facto complainant herein, but the petitioner as well. It was his contention that by offering employment to the petitioner, the 1st accused obtained money from him and in course of time, he happened to be conduit for making payment by the de facto complainant to the 1st accused. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that in the other cases of similar nature, the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail mainly for the reason that the 1st accused was already arrested and committed to judicial custody and therefore the petitioner is entitled to get bail in this matter as well.

The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, would oppose the application contending that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for collection of necessary evidence to arrive at a logical conclusion in the matter.

Annexure-III is a copy of the common order in B.A.Nos.8801, 8679 and 8980 of 2021. In three similar crimes, this Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The common 1st accused was arrested. He is now in judicial custody. Considering the said circumstances, I am of the view that pre-trial detention of the petitioner is not absolutely necessary in this matter. Therefore, I hold that the petitioner can be ordered to be released on bail in the event of his arrest.

Hence,  this  bail  application  is  allowed  and  the petitioner is directed to surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks. After interrogation and in the event of his being arrested, he shall be released on bail on the execution of a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only), with two solvent sureties for the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the investigating officer, and on the following conditions:

(i) Once released on bail, he shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for;

(ii) He shall not influence or intimidate witnesses or tamper with evidence; and

(iii) During the bail period, he shall not get involved in any offence.

In case of breach of the bail conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of the bail before the jurisdictional court.