Raja Vijayaraghavan V., J.:— This application is filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.
2. The applicant herein is the 1 accused in Crime No. 2067 of 2018 registered at the Adoor Police Station. In the aforesaid Crime, he is accused of having committed offence punishable under Sections 468, 471, 420 and 506 r/w Section 34 of the IPC.
3. The de facto complainant is a business man. In the month of December, 2016, he was introduced to the applicant by a mutual friend. The de facto complainant was induced to believe that the applicant is running a business enterprise in the name and style as Annz Impex General Trading, and was engaged in the procurement of waste paper from various countries for supplying to Hindustan News Print Ltd. at Kottayam. Various other fraudulent claims were made to convince the de facto complainant that he is heading a large business empire. Believing the said representation, the de facto complainant agreed to join the applicant in his business. The de facto complainant went to Dubai and after negotiations, he was asked to contribute a sum of Rs. 5 Crores. He was assured that he would be made a partner in the business run by the applicant. He raised a sum of about Rs. 5 Crores from his friends and relatives and the same was handed over to the applicant on various dates. Certain cheques were handed over by the accused towards security. However, the applicant back tracked and the de facto complainant was not made a partner. When the amount was demanded back, the applicant along with his wife came to Adoor and executed an agreement as per which, they agreed to repay a sum of Rs. 5.5 Crores within a period of three months and handed over a cheque for the said amount. In order to convince the de facto complainant that large sums of money was due to the applicant, a bogus purchase order and credit letter from Hindustan Newsprint were shown. When the complainant realised that he was defrauded, he set the law in motion.
4. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the applicant asserts that the applicant is innocent. It is submitted that the applicant was arrested on 1.9.2018 and he was given in police custody for a day. He was thoroughly interrogated and all records relating to the offence has been seized. In that view of the matter, his further detention in custody is clearly unwarranted is the submission. The learned counsel has also referred to various documents which have been produced as Annexures-B to K to contend that the allegation against the applicant has no legs to stand.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor has refuted the submissions of the learned Senior counsel. It is submitted that a bogus purchase order and credit letter from Hindustan Newsprint Ltd. were created by the applicant to dupe the de facto complainant. It is further submitted that the wife of the applicant herein had approached this Court seeking an order of pre-arrest bail. Direction was issued to her to surrender before the jurisdictional court. However, she has not complied with the said direction.
6. The de facto complainant has filed an application seeking intervention, which was allowed. Sri. T.P. Pradeep, who appears for the de facto complainant, contended that the allegations are serious considering the magnitude of the loss that was caused to the unsuspecting businessman. The learned counsel has also invited the attention of this Court to Annexures-R2(a) & (b) and it was argued that the applicant has adopted the same modus operandi to deceive numerous others in an identical manner.
7. I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the materials made available. At this stage, a deeper probe into the allegations are not warranted lest it prejudices either of the sides. The fact remains that the applicant herein was arrested on 1.9.2018. His custody was handed over to the police and it is evident from the case diary that he was thoroughly interrogated. The dispute involves certain commercial transactions between two businessmen. Having considered the nature and gravity of the allegations, the period of detention undergone and the stage of investigation, I am of the view the further detention in custody of the applicant is not required in the instant case.
8. In the result, this application will stand allowed. The applicant shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lakhs only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the court below. The above order shall be subject to the following conditions:
1). The applicant shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays and Saturdays between 10 AM and 1 PM, for 2 months or till final report is filed, whichever is earlier.
2). He shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall he tamper with the evidence.
3). He shall not commit any similar offence while he is on bail.
4). The applicant shall surrender his passport before the court below or if he does not have one, he shall file an affidavit to that effect within five days of his release. Application for release of the passport, if any, shall be considered by the trial court at the appropriate stage.
9. In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.
Comments