Jerin Lali Hybeseba vs State Of Kerala

Mohammed Nias C.P., J

Apprehending arrest in Crime No.929/2023 of Malayankeezh Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District, registered for offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 r/w section 34 of the IPC accused Nos.1 to 3 have filed this application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The prosecution allegation is that with an intention to extort money from the defacto complainant and to cheat him, the accused obtained Rs.44,99,985/- by giving a false promise to arrange an investor visa to Canada and thereby committed the above offence.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the transactions with the defacto complainant are all monetary transactions through the bank accounts. He submits that similar complaints have been raised by persons who are enmical towards him. Out of the five crimes registered, in two crimes the accused have been granted anticipatory bail by the sessions Court itself. It is also pointed out that the complaint given by the defacto complainant in Crime No.929/2023, to the Chief Minister was forwarded to the police. A report was filed stating that the dispute is of civil nature. This is evident from Annexure A2.

The defacto complainant opposing the bail application submitted that the first petitioner posing as a Pastor made the defacto complainant believe that he could arrange a work visa for the son and daughter-in-law of the defacto complainant and took Rs.44,99,985/. He also argued that there are five crimes registered against the petitioner.

Learned counsel Public Prosecutor filed a report submitted that the accused persons did not issue the visa nor refunded the amount taken from the defacto complainant and has accordingly committed the crime.

Having considered the rival submissions, and also noticing Annexure A2, a report of the police submitted on the complaint filed by the defacto complainant to the Chief Minister and which was forwarded to the police, that most of the evidence in the case is in documentary form, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail ensuring proper co-operation of the petitioners. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail applications are allowed subject to the following conditions:

(i) The petitioners are directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer within a week from today, and on such surrender, the Investigating Officer can interrogate the petitioners. In the event of their arrest, the Investigating officer shall produce the petitioners before the jurisdictional court on the date of surrender itself.

(ii) On such production, the jurisdictional court shall release the petitioners on bail, on executing separate bonds for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty-five thousand only) each by the petitioners and by two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court.

(iii) The petitioners shall fully cooperate with the investigation, including subjecting themselves to the deemed police custody for the purpose of recovery, if any, as and when demanded.

(iv) The petitioners shall not intimidate the witnesses or interfere with the Investigation in any manner.

(v) The petitioners shall not be involved in any offence while on bail.

(vi) The petitioners shall not leave India without the prior permission of the jurisdictional Court.

It is made clear that it is within the power of police to investigate the matter and, if necessary, to effect recoveries on the information, if any, given by the petitioners, even when the petitioners are on bail as per the judgment of the Apex Court in Sushila Aggarwal and others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another [2021 (1) KHC 663].