Sneha Sanjeev vs State Of Kerala

Sophy Thomas, J.

This is a petition for Anticipatory Bail filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No. 849/2021 of Chandera Police Station, Kasargode, registered under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC r/w

Section 4 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978.

The prosecution case is that in January 2021, the accused made the de facto complainant and her daughter to believe that, if they invest money in a

company named “Q-netâ€, they will get more money as profit share and accordingly she received Rs.1,60,000/- from them and invested the same

in that company. But so far, they did not receive any profit share from that company. Thus, she cheated them.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

According to the petitioner, the de facto complainant is her neighbour and relative. In fact, daughter of the de facto complainant Miss.Shonima and

her associates introduced the online services and products provided by Q-net company to the petitioner. A false complaint has been preferred by the

de facto complainant because of some monitory disputes pending between them. The petitioner is a practicing dentist and she has no criminal

antecedents. She is ready to abide by any conditions imposed by this Court.

Learned Public Prosecutor admitted that daughter of the de facto complainant also has invested money in Q-net company, as induced by the

petitioner. But, learned counsel for the petitioner produced Annexure-A3 document to show that Miss.Shonima is an independent representative of Q-

net company. According to the petitioner, Miss.Shonima introduced to her the products and services of Q-net company, and she is not a promoter or

staff of the company. There were some financial disputes between the de facto complainant and the petitioner, and only to pressurize her, a false

complaint was lodged against her. No documents are available to prove the relationship of the petitioner with Q-net company, other than availing its

products and services as admitted by her. According to her, the de facto complainant also availed the products and services of Q-net company by

paying some amount, and she never cheated them assuring share of profit in the company.

The petitioner is a Dentist, duly registered with Kerala Dental Council as seen from Annexure-A2. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the

petitioner has to be questioned in custody to collect the details from her mobile phone, e-mail etc to prove her relationship with Q-net company. The

petitioner is ready to co-operate with the investigation and also to obey any directions imposed by this court. She being a lady having no criminal

antecedents and the dispute is with respect to financial dealings with an online company, this Court is inclined to allow her application on the following

terms:

(i). The petitioner is directed to surrender before the investigating officer on 14.02.2022 at 10:00 a.m. The investigating officer can collect all relevant materials and

evidence within her knowledge, which are necessary for the investigation.

(ii) In the event of arrest, she 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 arresting officer.

(iii) Thereafter the petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required.

(iv) She shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from

disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer.

(v) She shall not tamper with the evidence.

(vi) She shall not commit any offence while on bail.

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the Jurisdictional Magistrate is empowered to cancel the bail, in accordance with law.