David George vs State Of Kerala

Bechu Kurian Thomas, J

This is an application for regular bail filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Petitioner is the 5th accused in Crime No.908 of 2022 of Koipuram Police Station, Pathanamthitta District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 409,420 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and also under Sections 5 r/w 23, 25(1) and 3 r/w Section 21(2)(3) of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019.

The prosecution case is that, accused 1 to 4, being the directors and the 5th accused being the Manager of a financial institution, by name, 'PRD Mini Nidhi Ltd.', had induced the defacto complainant to deposit Rs.5,24,600/-with the promise of a higher interest rate and thereafter failed to return the amount and thereby committed the offences alleged.

Sri.C.C.Anoop, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the entire prosecution allegations are false and that the incident as alleged had never occurred. It was further submitted that the petitioner was only an employee of the said financial institution and had no direct involvement. It was also submitted that petitioner was even granted an anticipatory bail in one of the cases as per order dated 15.11.2022 in B.A.No.8453/2022 and that further detention of the petitioner is not essential.

Smt.M.K.Pushpalatha, the learned Public Prosecutor, opposed the grant of bail and submitted that allegations are serious requiring continued detention and that if the petitioner is released on bail, there is every possibility of him influencing and intimidating the witnesses. It was further submitted that there are 102 case registered against the petitioner and other accused and, therefore, considering the gravity of the offences and the series of cases that are pending against the petitioner, he ought not to be released on bail.

I have considered the rival contentions.

Petitioner is alleged to have committed an offence under Section 420 of IPC apart from the offences under the BUDS Act. Even though the allegations are serious, considering the period of detention already undergone from 01.12.2022, I am of the view that the continued detention of the petitioner is not required in the circumstances of the case. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail.

In the result, this application is allowed on the following conditions:-

(a) Petitioner shall be released on bail on him executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction.

(b) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required.

(c) Petitioner shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall he tamper with the evidence or contact the defacto complainant or her family members.

(d) Petitioner shall not commit any similar offences while he is on bail.

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law, notwithstanding the bail having been granted by this Court.