G Madhava Kurup vs State Of Kerala `

A. Badharudeen, J

This is an application for anticipatory bail, filed by the petitioner, who is the 1st accused in Crime No.21/2023 of Anthikkadu Police Station.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

I have perused the report filed by the Investigating Officer, placed by the learned Public Prosecutor.

The crux of the prosecution allegation is that, in between January 2021 and September 2021, accused Nos.1 to 3 borrowed Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakh only), through their account from the account of the mother of the de facto complainant, undertaking to provide employment of Fireman in Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre (VSSC). The de facto complainant lodged a complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thrissur and when the same was forwarded for investigation, this crime was registered, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the allegations are false and the petitioner is a person, who is aged 80 years and he had borrowed some amount from the de facto complainant through his account, for which, security document also was issued. The allegation that petitioner borrowed Rs.4,00,000/-(Rupees Four Lakh only), with undertaking to provide employment, as alleged by the de facto complainant, is false. Submitting so, with offer to co-operate with the investigation, the learned counsel for the petitioner pursued the relief of anticipatory bail.

The learned Public Prosecutor would submit that, as per the report, money was collected through the account of the accused and therefore, the prosecution case as to transfer of money, could be gathered from the report of the Investigating Officer.

On perusal of the report, the transaction is in between 21.1.2021 to 1.9.2021. The complaint seen lodged only during the first month of 2023. However, the allegations would require effective investigation and the same is left to the domain of the Investigating Officer.

Having considered the crux of the case as discussed, I direct the petitioner to subject himself for interrogation, to aid the investigation.

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and the petitioner is released on bail, on the following conditions:

i. The petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and on such surrender, the Investigating Officer can question the petitioner. In the event of his arrest, the Investigating Officer shall produce the petitioner before the jurisdictional court on the date of arrest itself.

ii. On such production, the jurisdictional court shall release the petitioner on bail, on executing bond for Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) by himself and by two solvent sureties, each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court.

iii. The petitioner shall co-operate with investigation and shall be made available for interrogation and for the purpose of investigation, as and when the Investigating Officer directs so.

iv. The petitioner, shall not, intimidate the witnesses or interfere with the investigation in any manner.

v. The petitioner shall not commit any offence during currency of this bail and any such involvement is a reason to cancel the bail hereby granted.