Radhakrishnan Nair vs State Of Kerala

This is an application seeking anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 Cr.PC.

The applicant is the second accused in Crime No.3632/2020 of the Kottarakara Police Station for having allegedly committed offences punishable

under Sections 420, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 IPC.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 19.08.2020 at about 10 a.m., the applicant along with the other co-accused dishonestly induced the de facto

complainant to deliver a sum of Rs.5 lakhs to them for the purpose of securing a job as a clerk in ISRO. He was made to believe that the first

accused, a lady, is employed in the ISRO in a very influential position and could easily arrange a job for him.

The applicant states that he is innocent and the allegations are not true. He is a retired drawing teacher and used to spent his evenings in

Kottarakkara Ganapathi Temple. The first accused used to come there and she made him believe that she was employed in the ISRO and was in a

position to influence recruitments in Government departments such as Railways, ISRO and Army. The applicant also believed her. The de facto

complainant had approached the applicant and he introduced him to the first accused as a result of which a sum of Rs.5 lakhs was allegedly handed

over by the de facto complainant directly to the first accused regarding which the applicant has absolutely no knowledge. His role is limited to the fact

he had introduced first accused to the de facto complainant, and that apart, he has not dishonestly induced the de facto complainant to deliver the

amount, nor has he been enriched by the said transaction. He has no criminal antecedents and therefore seeks pre-arrest bail.

The applicant had earlier approached the Sessions Court, Kollam for anticipatory bail and the same was rejected by the Court for the reason that

custodial interrogation of the applicant could be necessary to unravel the intricacies in the case.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and the learned Public Prosecutor.

Even going by the prosecution case, it is the applicant who had introduced the de facto complainant to the first accused for the purpose of the job

which the de facto complainant was in need of. The applicant also was allegedly misled by the first accused regarding her capability to employ

persons in Government Departments and in ISRO. It is only with all good intentions that the applicant had introduced the de facto complainant to the

first accused. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. He is willing to cooperate with the investigation. I do not find it necessary that he has to be

incarcerated for the purpose of interrogation as long as he is willing to cooperate with the investigation and subject himself to interrogation and appear

before the investigating officer.

In the result, the bail application is allowed and the applicant is directed to surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks. In the event

of his being arrested, he shall be released on bail on the execution of a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties

each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the investigating officer, and on the following further conditions:

(i) He shall appear before the investigating officer as and when called for and co-operate with the investigation.

(ii) He shall not tamper with evidence or intimidate or influence the witnesses.

(iii) He shall not get involved in any similar offence during the currency of the bail.

In case of breach of any of the above bail conditions, the prosecution is at liberty to approach the jurisdictional court for cancellation of the bail.