Unnikrishnan C.K. vs State Of Kerala And Anr

This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

The applicant is the sole accused in Crime No.1420/2020 of Kannur Town Police Station for having allegedly committed the offences punishable

under Sections 409 and 420 of the I.P.C.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that during June 2013 to June 2017, the applicant had dishonestly induced the de facto complainant to a deliver

Omani Riyals worth Rupees one crore to the applicant making him believe that he will arrange a quarry licence for conducting quarry business in

Oman. The accused was closed to the de facto complainant and they were acquainted with each other, and therefore, there was no difficulty for the

applicant to make the de facto complainant believe all that he said. However, after having received the money, the applicant had allegedly

misappropriated the said amount and did not return the money. It is alleged that he had issued a cheque, which also had bounced.

The applicant states that he is innocent and the allegations are not true and that the applicant has absolutely no connection with the quarrying

business, and therefore, the very allegation that the applicant had received money from the de facto complainant for carrying out quarrying business is

a falsity.

Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned Public Prosecutor as also the learned Counsel appearing for the de facto complainant

The learned Counsel for the de facto complainant submits that the applicant had allegedly obtained a cheque from a company in which the de facto

complainant was employed. Using that cheque, he presented it before the bank manipulating it himself and it was allegedly dishonoured for want of

sufficient funds.

The applicant states that the de facto complainant does not have a constant case. His case before the Indian Embassy at Oman was different from

what is stated in the complaint which he has filed before the police here. Under the circumstances, it is a totally unbelievable case and the applicant is

willing to cooperate with the investigation, and therefore, he seeks anticipatory bail. The bail application filed by the applicant before the Sessions

Court was dismissed for the reason that huge sums of money are involved, and therefore, the applicant is not entitled to the extraordinary remedy of

anticipatory, since he will have to be subjected to custodial interrogation for unravelling the truth about the transaction. The applicant further states that

he has no criminal antecedents and there is no possibility of his absconding, and therefore, he may be granted anticipatory bail.

After having heard the submissions made by the counsel appearing for the applicant and the de facto complainant and also the Public Prosecutor, I

find that the applicant does not have any criminal antecedents. He has produced documents to show that he has not been involved in any criminal case

in Oman. Therefore, the allegation of the de facto complainant that the applicant had cheated many others, does not appear to be true or factually

correct. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that unless the applicant has subjected himself to questioning, it is not possible to conclude about his

involvement in the alleged act of cheating. In case the applicant had received money from the de facto complainant and issued a cheque for that

amount, the proper procedure would have been to file a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I.Act, which he has not filed, and therefore, the veracity

of the allegations made by the de facto complainant is to be doubted, argues the learned Counsel for the applicant.

Considering the above arguments, I find that the applicant is willing to cooperate with the investigation. Hence, stringent conditions can be imposed

to see that he is cooperating with the investigation and appears 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, after interrogation and recovery, if any, he shall be released on bail on the execution of a bond for Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs

only), with two solvent sureties for the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the investigating officer, and on the following conditions:

(i) He shall not influence or intimidate witnesses or tamper with evidence;

(ii) He shall appear before the investigating officer on all Saturdays between 9.00 AM and 12.00 noon for a period of three months or till the final

report is filed, whichever is earlier;

(iii) He shall surrender his passport before the jurisdictional court and shall not go abroad until permitted by the jurisdictional court; and

(iv) During the bail period, he shall not get involved in any similar offences.

In case of breach of the bail conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of the bail before the jurisdictional court.