Renju P.George vs State Of Kerala

K.Haripal, J

Petitioner is the 3rd accused in crime 18/2020 of Manarcadu police station in Kottayan district. That crime was registered alleging offence under Section 420 read with 34 of the IPC alleging that the petitioner along with other accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention, had collected an amount of Rs.2,94,500/- from the defacto complainant offering her employment abroad as a nurse and later employment was not arranged and on that basis the crime was registered on the strength of the first information statement given by one Bincymol A.K. During the course of investigation, the petitioner moved the Sessions Court with a petition under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. seeking pre-arrest bail which was allowed by order dated 04.03.2021 in Crl.M.P. No.179/2021. In that order, marked as Annexure-A2, the learned Sessions Judge found that there are materials to indicate that the petitioner/3rd accused also was a victim of the foul play committed by accused Nos.1 and 2, that they had collected money from the petitioner as well, offering employment abroad. On that premise, accepting her version and also taking into account that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not warranted, she was granted anticipatory bail stating that, in the event of arrest she shall execute a bond for Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties; she shall also co-operate with the investigation, shall appear before the Investigating Officer once in a week for a period of one month and once in two weeks for a further period of one month, on Wednesdays between 10 and 11 a.m. and thereafter, as and when required by the Investigating Officer. Some other conditions were also incorporated as usual. Later, alleging that the petitioner did not comply with those conditions, the Investigating Officer moved the Sessions Court by filing an application for cancelling the bail. The learned Sessions Judge heard the petition and by Annexure-A3 order dated 24.08.2021 allowed the same and bail granted to her was cancelled. Aggrieved by that order the petitioner has moved this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was absolutely no direction to surrender before the Investigating Officer which is usual in an order granting anticipatory bail, that she is presently working as staff nurse in Delhi and due to covid restrictions she could not come down to Kottayam to the police station, that she was under a bona fide belief that she was required to comply with condition No.2 only after execution of the bail bond. It was also reiterated that she is one among the victims of the deceit played by accused Nos.1 and 2. Moreover, she submitted that she is a single parent, the mother of a minor girl child and there is no one to look after the child. On these considerations, the learned counsel prayed that Annexure-A3 order may be quashed.

On the other hand, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor opposed the application. According to him, the most important condition is condition No.2 by which she is liable to surrender before the Investigating Officer; the arguments now raised are without any bona fide and cannot be accepted. According to him, there is nothing to interfere with the order under challenge.

It is evident from the statement of the Investigating Officer filed before the Sessions Court that the petitioner did not actually play any positive role in cheating the defacto complainant, as alleged. The court has also reason to believe, basing on the materials made available, that she is one of the victims of deceit played by accused Nos.1 and 2. In fact that was the reason that prompted the learned Sessions Judge to grant her anticipatory bail. All the same, it is a fact that she had not complied with the second condition that she should co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer once in a week for a period of one month etc. That means, at least within a period of one month she should have appeared before the Investigating Officer and showed her willingness to co-operate with the investigation. That has not been done. All the same, in my opinion, the reasons that prompted the learned Sessions Judge in granting her pre-arrest bail still hold the field. That means, her custody is not necessary for any practical purpose. Even though the reasons stated by her for not appearing before the Investigating Officer are not at all convincing, for two reasons I am inclined to allow this application. Firstly, as stated earlier, the petitioner is one of the victims of the deceit played by accused 1 and 2. She does not have positive role in cheating the defacto complainant. In the circumstances, it is unwholesome to put her in prison.

Secondly, cancellation of bail implies that she is liable to be remanded to judicial custody. In the light of the facts revealed, remanding her to judicial custody is uncalled for. There is nothing to recover from her possession. Only thing is that she should be made to co-operate with the investigation. Even though the reasons stated by her in support of this petition are not convincing, being a lady she can be granted one more opportunity to co-operate with the investigation. Moreover, as pointed out by the learned counsel, there is no direction by the Sessions Judge while granting bail to surrender before the Investigating Officer within a stipulated time. Normally such a condition is imposed by courts while granting anticipatory bail. Whatever it may be, for the reasons already stated, it is not necessary to put her in custody, which will be a luxury for the prosecution.

In the circumstances, Annexure-A3 order is interfered with and it is cancelled. The petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today. In the event of arrest, she shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. She shall also co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when necessary. It is further made clear that she shall not involve in any case during the period on bail; shall not influence the witnesses or cause any inducement to them. Subject to the above conditions, this Crl.M.C. will stand allowed.