Vasanthakumar vs State Of Kerala And Ors

Application for regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The applicant is the second accused in Crime No.114/2019 of Malampuzha Police Station, Palakkad, for having allegedly committed offence punishable under Section 420 r/w Section 34 of the IPC.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that the first accused namely Jaleel had allegedly contacted the de facto complainant over phone introduced himself as Jaleel and dishonestly induced him to deliver a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- to the bank account of the applicant for arranging a job Visa as an Electrician in Maldives. Accordingly, the amount was transferred to the account of the applicant, but no job as promised neither any Visa was arranged. Hence the applicant in furtherance of common intention with the first accused cheated the de facto complainant.

The applicant states that he is innocent. He is a taxi driver in Chennai and belongs to Tamil Nadu. He had acquaintance with the first accused who is known by the name Musthafa to him. He was doing some business in Chennai. He approached the applicant by stating that there were some technical flaw in his bank account and therefore wanted the applicant to receive amounts in his account. Accordingly, sum of Rs.1,80,000/-as also some other amount were transferred to the applicant's account by persons not known to him. Those amounts he transferred to the first applicant, and did he know that the amounts were received by the first accused by dishonestly inducing the depositors that they would be provided with job Visa in Maldives. The applicant has no criminal antecedents apart from these two incidents. He has a wife and two children who are depending on him for their livelihood. He therefore seeks bail, he has been arrested on 22.01.2021 and continues in custody. He is not likely to flee from justice and he has a permanent place of abode in Chennai.

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

The learned Public Prosecutor submits that apart from this crime, the applicant is also involved in another crime of similar nature in Alappuzha Police Station. Since he is a person having antecedents and he is closely associated with the first accused in cheating people, the application for bail is vehemently opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor.

The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that these are only two instances where he was asked to receive money from unknown persons by the first accused. Making him believe that there was a technical flaw regarding his account and that amount were to be received into the account of the applicant. The applicant did not doubt the credentials of the first accused and little did he know that he was being taken for a ride and was implicated in a false case. The applicant has no other criminal antecedents and hence seeks bail.

After having heard the submissions on both sides, I find that apart from these two instances, the applicant is not involved in any other crime. The applicant is willing to co-operate with the investigation. There is evidence to prove his complicity since he has admitted that he has received amount from the de facto complainant in two cases through his account. But his defence is that he has handed over that money to the first accused, which may have to be proved by materials before the trial court. Considering these facts, I find that further detention of the applicant may not be necessary. He is willing to co-operate with the investigation and there is no possibility of his fleeing from justice.

In the result, the bail application is allowed and the applicant is directed to be released on bail on execution of bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) with two local sureties for the like amount each to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court and on the following conditions;

(1) He shall furnish his address and mobile number to the investigating officer as also the trial court.

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

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