Purushothaman @ Vijayan vs State Of Kerala

Mohammed Nias C.P., J.

Petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 3 in crime No.1497 of Thrikkodithanam police station, Kottayam district. The prosecution allegation is that the accused, with a view to cheat the de facto complainant and promising her money to conduct the marriage of her daughter by purchasing gold ornaments, went to jewellery called ‘V Gold’ on 19.8.2023 for the purchase of 20 sovereigns of gold worth Rs.10,85,000/- out of which Rs.6,00,000/- was paid by the second accused and for the balance of Rs.4,85,000/- a cheque was given by the de facto complainant. The second accused had assured that the said amount would be paid to the jewellery, and the first accused had taken Rs.52,000/- on various occasions from the de facto complainant, and the said amount has not been repaid to the de facto complainant and also Rs.4,85,000/- has not been paid to the jewellery by the accused and thus committed the offence.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that they were only brokers for the marriage of the daughter of the de facto complainant. They were requested to arrange a buyer for their land worth Rs.8 lakh or to arrange some money by mortgage so as to meet the expenses of the marriage. They also submit that the present complaint is filed to wriggle out of the de facto complainant's liability towards the jewellery for the purchase of gold.

The de facto complainant submitted that the petitioners had taken Rs.25,000/- from her and also had undertaken the liability to pay the jewellery.

After having considered the rival submissions and also the date on which the complaint was filed, which is exactly one month from the date of purchase, and that the story put up by the de facto complainant prima facie appears to be unbelievable as A1 and A3 had no responsibility to buy gold ornaments for the de facto complainant's daughter or to pay the amount to the jewellery for the purchase of the de facto complainant, I do not think that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required and I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners on the following grounds:-

i. The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and subject themselves to interrogation.

ii. After interrogation, in the event of the investigating officer deciding to arrest the petitioners, they shall be released on bail on executing separate bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) each with two solvent shorties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the officer concerned.

iii.The petitioners shall be interrogated before the investigating officer as and when directed.

iv. They shall also cooperate with the investigation and shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the court or the police officer.

v. The petitioners shall not leave India without the permission of the jurisdictional court.

vi. The petitioners shall not commit any offence while on bail.

If the petitioners violate any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional court shall be empowered to cancel the bail in accordance with law.