Noufal Nisar vs State Of Kerala

K. Haripal, J

This is an application filed under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the third accused in crime No.2234/2020 of Muvattupuzha police

station. The petitioner contends that he was arrayed as an accused in the crime on the allegation that he had colluded with other accused persons in

arranging job abroad in Bangkok and thus amount of Rs.83,37,000/- was collected from 27 persons. Later all of them were taken to Bangkok but job

could not be arranged. After about 15 days they came back to native place. Later, it is said, it was offered that they would be given job in Malaysia

and on that promise Rs.1,80,000/- each was collected from different persons. That amount, coming about Rs.37 lakhs, was collected through the

account of the third accused the petitioner; thus they were taken to Malaysia. Even though all of them spent 97 days in Malaysia, they could not be

given any placement, thus they returned to native place. The crime was registered on the complaint of one Joby M. Mohanan to the effect that the

accused have cheated him and others offering job, thus collected Rs.1,20,37,000/-; on those allegations the crime was registered alleging offence

under Section 420 r/w 34 of the IPC.

I heard counsel on both sides.

Since it was stated that the crime was registered on the basis of a private complaint moved before the Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Muvattupuzha by Joby M. Mohanan, he was impleaded as additional second respondent and notice was sent to him. Even though the notice was duly

served, he did not turn up or make any representation at the time of hearing the petitioner's counsel.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact he is only an employee under the first accused, that he also had gone to Bangkok and then

to Malaysia, that he is a childhood friend of the first accused Sarath Chandran, he was also offered employment of Freelans Marketing Controller and

Client Communicator; he was taken on that assurance but given the job of a driver. Thereafter he was promised that the offered job will be given, that

the entire bank accounts were being transacted by the first accused after making him believe that he will be offered good job. According to him he

has no role in the alleged cheating or in the job scam.

I have called for the Case Diary and perused the same. No doubt, it is a big job scam in which huge amounts were collected from 27 persons,

which comes to the tune of Rs.1,20,37,000/-. At first 27 of them were taken to Bangkok offering job as Helper in a rig in Thailand. They spent there

for 15 days but job could not be given. Thereafter all of them returned to the native place. Then they said that they will be given employment in

Malaysia and on that promise, Rs.1,80,000/- each was again collected from them. That amount of Rs.37 lakhs was transferred through the account of

the third accused, the petitioner.

The case diary indicates that by report dated 10.06.2021 the defacto complainant himself has been transposed as the first accused and the rank of

the other accused has been lowered further. In other words, now the petitioner is the fourth accused in contrast to his position as the third accused in

the original case. Whatever it may be, there are reasons to think that the defacto complainant had played a lead role in collecting amounts from 27

persons who were taken to Bangkok and then to Malaysia. The role of the said Sarath Chandran who was the original first accused, now the second

accused, also cannot be underestimated. But the case diary does not suggest any lead role having been played by the petitioner, who is presently the

fourth accused to the crime. Of course, there is allegation that an amount of Rs.37 lakhs was transferred through his account. It seems that he was

only a tool in the hands of the said Sarath Chandran, even though money transactions had taken place through his bank account as well. In the

circumstances, and having regard to the fact that the said Sarath Chandran, his mother the original second accused etc. have been granted bail,

custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary. Only thing is that he should make himself available for interrogation along with bank records,

as and when required by the Investigating Officer. Therefore, it does not seem that there is any legal impediment in granting anticipatory bail to the

petitioner. He shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and make himself available for interrogation. He will also

produce necessary documents before the police, as required by them. In the event of arrest, he shall be released on bail on executing bond for

Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer; he shall co-

operate with the investigation, shall not try to contact or influence the witnesses or tamper with the evidence and shall not involve in any crime during

the period on bail.

This bail application is allowed as above.