Salim Ali vs State Of Kerala

Gopinath P., J

The petitioners in these cases are accused in Crime Nos.791/2021, 776/2021, 775/2021 & 787/2021 of Payyoli Police Station. In all the aforesaid crimes the allegation is that the petitioners along with other accused obtained gold ornaments from the de facto complainants stating that if the gold ornaments are invested with the company known as 'Gold Palace' at Payyoli as deposit, they will be given attractive returns by way of dividends. It is alleged that after accepting gold ornaments from the de facto complainants in these cases the petitioners and the other accused failed to return either the gold ornaments or the dividends as promised.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the petitioners are absolutely innocent in the matter. It is submitted that the petitioners are only employees of the aforesaid company and later they were made partners of a Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) which was engaged in the business in question. It is submitted that the petitioners have no personal liability for the claims of the de facto complainants. It is submitted that there is no case that the petitioners have directly induced the de facto complainants in these cases to deposit the gold in question. It is submitted that accused Nos.2, 6 & 7 in Crime No.791/2021 have been released on bail in all crimes registered against them. It is submitted that the petitioners have been in custody for 41 days and their continued detention is not necessary for the purpose of any investigation.

The learned Public Prosecutor vehementally opposes the grant of bail. The circumstances of the case against the petitioners are pointed out. It is submitted that there are clear allegations in the First Information Statements recorded from the de facto complainants in the cases where the role of the petitioners is clearly mentioned. It is submitted that going by the First Information Statements the petitioners were instrumental in obtaining gold ornaments from the de facto complainants in these cases promising high returns. It is also submitted that the gold ornaments in question have not been recovered so far.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of the allegations against the petitioners, I am of the opinion that the petitioner can be granted bail as their continued detention may not be necessary for the purpose of any investigation. I also note that going by the First Information Statements recorded from the de facto complainants in these cases the petitioners had not played any direct role in inducing the de facto complainants to deposit gold with the company/partnership in question.

In the result these bail applications are allowed. It is directed that the petitioners shall be released on bail, subject to the following conditions:-

(i) The petitioners shall execute separate bonds in each case for sums of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court;

(ii) The Petitioners shall report before the Investigating officer in Crime Nos.791/2021, 776/2021, 775/2021 & 787/2021 of Payyoli Police Station on every Saturday at 11 a.m until filing of final report;

(iii) The petitioners shall not attempt to interfere with the investigation, influence or intimidate the de facto complainants or any witness in Crime Nos.791/2021, 776/2021, 775/2021 & 787/2021 of Payyoli Police Station;

(iv) The petitioners shall not involve in any other crime while on bail.

If any of the aforesaid conditions are violated, the Investigating officer in Crime Nos.791/2021, 776/2021, 775/2021 & 787/2021 of Payyoli Police Station may file an application before the jurisdictional Court for cancellation of bail.

Any observations contained in this order only for the purpose of considering the entitlement of the petitioners for bail and shall not be treated as finding by this court on any point.