Kerala High Court
Sandeep Mehta vs State Of Kerala on 29 June, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 KER 1256
Author: Ashok Menon
Bench: Ashok Menon
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON
MONDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE 2020 / 8TH ASHADHA, 1942
Bail Appl.No.8399 OF 2019
CRIME NO.1108/2019 OF Panangad Police Station , Ernakulam
PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED:
SANDEEP MEHTA,
AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.ASHOK KUMAR MEHTA,
M/S.JAIN HOUSING AND CONSTRUCTIONS, NO.88/99,
HABIBULLA ROAD, T.NAGAR, CHENNAI.
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.RAJEEV
SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN
SRI.V.VINAY
SRI.D.FEROZE
SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW
RESPONDENTS/STATE:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM-682031
(CRIME NO.1108/2019 OF PANANGAD POLICE STATION,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, RE-REGISTERED AS CRIME
NO.471/CB/CU-II/EKM/R/2019 OF CRIME BRANCH,
CENTRAL UNIT-II, ERNAKULAM).
2 DY.SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
CRIME BRANCH, CENTRAL UNIT-II, ERNAKULAM-682031
(CRIME NO.1108/2019 OF PANANGAD POLICE STATION,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, RE-REGISTERED AS CRIME
NO.471/CB/CU-II/EKM/R/2019 OF CRIME BRANCH,
CENTRAL UNIT-II, ERNAKULAM).
B.A.No. 8399 of 2019
-2-
3* PHILO EMMANUEL
AGED 72 YEARS, W/O K.J.EMMANUEL,
FLAT NO.4F, JAINS CORAL COVE, KETTUZHUKADAVU ROAD,
NETTOOR P.O, MARADU, ERNAKULAM,
NOW RESIDING AT AT FLAT NO.5B,
CHACKOLAS WATERSCAPES, PANDIT KARUPPAN ROAD,
THEVARA, COCHIN-682013.
*IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 23/01/2020 IN
CRL.MA NO.2/2019 IN B.A.NO.8399/2019.
R1& R2 BY SRI.K.V.SOHAN, STATE ATTORNEY
R3 BY ADV. L.YESHWANTH
R3 BY ADV. SMT.AYSHA ABRAHAM
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
06.02.2020, THE COURT ON 29.06.2020 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.No. 8399 of 2019
-3-
O R D E R
Dated this the 29th day of June 2020 Application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.
2. The petitioner is the 1st accused in Crime No.1108/2019 of Panangad Police Station, which was re-registered as Crime No.471/CB/CU-II/EKM/R/2019 of Crime Branch, Central Unit-II, Ernakulam, for having allegedly committed the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 120B of I.P.C. and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
3. The prosecution case in brief is thus:
The petitioner as the Managing Director of the company named Jain Housing and Constructions Ltd. (for short "the Company") hatched a criminal conspiracy along with other co-accused, who are the Secretary of the Maradu Panchayat, the Junior Superintendent and the Section Clerk of the said Panchayat with the dishonest intention to amass wrongful pecuniary gain and got a building permit issued on 22.09.2006 to construct a multi-storied apartment building on the land, which came under the CRZ notification No.SO.114(E) dated 19.02.1991 and was classified as a wet land, without obtaining prior approval of the Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority (for short "KCZMA") and B.A.No. 8399 of 2019 -4- induced various buyers, including the defacto complainant to purchase apartments in the said building, named, Jains Coral Cove, Nettoor and subsequently the building had to be pulled down by the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which is in appeal arising from W.P.(C) No.23129/2007 and the appeal judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the Writ Appeal therefrom.
4. It is stated that the petitioner is the Managing Director of the aforesaid Company, incorporated under the Companies Act, having its registered office at Chennai and several branches at various places, including Kochi. The Company is engaged in purchasing and development of land and constructing multi-storied apartments thereon and selling it to different customers. In the instant case, the Company purchased 113.96 cents of land on 30.05.2006 at Nettoor in Ernakulam. There was no sale deed executed from its previous owners, but the Power of Attorney was got executed in the name of the petitioner and with which he transacted with the customers, who purchased the apartments.
5. Consequent to the Supreme Court judgment and the demolition of the building, the defacto complainant, who is the additional 3rd respondent herein, filed a complaint before the Panangad Police Station for cheating against the petitioner and others, which was later transferred to the Crime Branch and is presently under investigation. B.A.No. 8399 of 2019 -5-
6. The petitioner would contend that the Company had obtained all necessary permits for constructing the building from the Maradu Panchayat on 22.09.2006 and the construction completed in 2010. Out of the 122 apartments constructed, 73 were sold. While the construction was under progress, the Company received a notice from the Secretary of the Maradu Panchayat, asking them to show cause why action should not be taken against them for violation of the CRZ guidelines and the Kerala Municipality Building Rules (for short "Building Rules"). The Company sent a reply and thereafter filed a Writ Petition mentioned above. The Single Bench allowed the petition, quashing the show cause notice vide order dated 13.09.2012, which was challenged before the Division Bench and vide judgment dated 02.06.2015 the Single Bench decision was upheld. Review Petition filed by the KCZMA was also rejected.
7. Consequent to the filing of the appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it was not clear in which category that the property would fall under the CRZ Regulations. Based on the report of the Technical Committee, the Supreme Court ordered demolition holding that it being violative of the CRZ Norms. The High Level Committee was constituted to compensate the customers, who lost their flats. The Company had expressed its willingness to deposit the amount as directed by the Apex Court. The assets of the Company were attached.
B.A.No. 8399 of 2019-6-
8. The petitioner contends that he is permanently residing in Chennai, and therefore, he approached the Madras High Court with an anticipatory bail, which was in the first instance granted, but subsequently the order was recalled for the reason that the petitioner also has an address in Kochi. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is willing to co-operate with the investigation and custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary and from the events as mentioned above, it is adequately clear that the petitioner did not have the intention to cheat any of the Company's customers at the inception or the agreement. The orders passed by the Single Bench of this Court confirmed in appeal by the Division Bench and the Panchayat not exercising its right to issue a stop memo under Section 16 of the Building Rules, indicates that the petitioner did not have any dishonest intention to cheat. The learned Counsel would point out that till the matter reached the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it was not even clear as to which the CRZ Regulations zone the property would fall. Different standards are stated for different types of zones. At the time of granting sanction, Maradu was a Grama Panchayat and later it became a Municipality. The learned Counsel relies on various resolutions of the Panchayat, the judgments of this Court, as also the decision in Citizens Interest Agency v. Lakeshore Hospital B.A.No. 8399 of 2019 -7- & Research Centre Pvt.Ltd., 2003 (3) KLT 424. In support of his argument, regarding the lack of clarity in the CRZ maps in cadastral scale (1:3960 or the nearest scale) to ascertain the CRZ. In that decision it was held that it will be difficult to arrive at exact conclusions on the CRZ status of the disputed area and vide letter dated 04.01.1999 the Ministry of Environment and Forest has directed the State Government to prepare local level CRZ maps in cadastral scale (1:3960 or the nearest scale) to ascertain the CRZ. Actual status of the disputed construction can be "ascertained only with the help of such large scale map which has not bee prepared for this purpose". The decision of the National Coastal Zone Management Authority has not been received. Under the above circumstances, it is stated that the lack of clarity would indicate that the petitioner was under the bona fide belief that he had all the requisite sanctions and therefore the case of the prosecution that he had dishonestly induced the buyers to purchase the flats knowing fully well that he was cheating them, cannot be sustained.
9. The learned Counsel appearing for the defacto complainant/additional 3rd respondent states that the petitioner is the person, who was managing the affairs of the Company and solely responsible for whatever transpired between the Company and the purchasers. He acted in his B.A.No. 8399 of 2019 -8- personal capacity and not in his official capacity of being the Managing Director of the Company. The Power of Attorney was in his individual name and the agreements for sale were also executed in his capacity as Power of Attorney for the original owners and not only as Managing Director of the Company. It is further stated that the petitioner is not only guilty of cheating his customers, including the defacto complainant, but also is guilty of committing the offences punishable under Sections 336 and 338 as well as Section 307 of I.P.C. It is stated that he is a habitual offender and has also violated laws in another project in Kakkanad named "Tuffnell Gardens", which was also constructed on a wet land in violation of the notification of 2006. At the very inception, he was aware that the property came under CRZ notification and knowing that, he induced the Panchayat authorities to issue permit without getting sanction from the KCZMA. It is further submitted that he has been shying away from law, despite there being decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, and that he played fraud on the Madras High Court by misrepresentation and after having obtained an anticipatory bail from that High Court, the fraud prayed before the Court was exposed, as a result of which, the order was recalled vide separate order at Annexure R3(a). The petitioner in his application made false statements and suppressed material facts to mislead the Court and he is also liable for being B.A.No. 8399 of 2019 -9- prosecuted under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. Copies of the documents executed for the purpose of transaction are also produced by the defacto complainant as Annexures R3(c) to R3(e).
10. The learned State Attorney Sri.K.V.Sohan appearing for the State submits that primary investigation revealed involvement of the 1st accused in the crime. File relating to the issuance of the permit for the building has been seized. Basic Tax Register with respect to the property on which the flat was constructed, was also seized by the investigating officer. A search was conducted in the Kochi office of the Company on 05.10.2019 and files containing photocopies and few original documents of the agreements and receipts for payment made by the buyers were also seized during that search. A survey of the land on which the building constructed was conducted on 10.10.2019, revealed encroachment over 10 cents of puramboke land and it was also clear that the land on which the building was constructed was wet land. Notice under Section 160 of Cr.P.C. was sent by registered post to the 1st accused at the address of the Corporate Office at Chennai requiring his attendance before the investigating officer on 04.11.2019 and the notice sent on 24.10.2019 under Section 41A of Cr.P.C. seeking his appearance before the investigating officer on 04.11.2019 went unresponded. The petitioner did not appear and neither did he co-operate B.A.No. 8399 of 2019 -10- with the investigation. After approval from the Government on 15.10.2019 the accused 3 and 4, who are officials employed in the Panchayat, were arrested in connection with the investigation of another connected Crime No.473/2019. A search was also conducted at the Corporate Office of the Company at Chennai. But the 1 st accused was not available there for interrogation. Few financial statements, balance sheet, annual report, etc. were seized. But the staff gave a statement to the effect that all the original documents were in the locker and custody of the petitioner. Arrest of accused 3 and 4 were recorded on 23.10.2019 in this crime. The 5th accused also surrendered before the Vigilance Court on 19.11.2019. They were all questioned while in custody. The 2nd respondent, who is the former staff of the petitioner, was also interrogated, but it was noticed that he was only acting under instructions from the petitioner, and therefore, he was not arrested. It is submitted that the investigation so far revealed that all the transactions were being made by the petitioner personally himself or under his specific instructions, and therefore, he is the main culprit. Certain documents like the original Power of Attorney executed by the land owners, copy of the title deeds obtained by the Company, the documents entrusting/autorising the accused to purchase and effect construction and original Power of Attorney given by the accused to his staff and others with respect to the B.A.No. 8399 of 2019 -11- building work, Companies bank account details and his personal bank account details, payment and receipt details, as well as details regarding the usage of fund received by the Company and the details regarding the assets and properties of the Company, the means and modes/advertisement, etc. are all necessary for the investigation to be effective. The petitioner is suppressing material facts and evading questions and therefore his custodial interrogation is absolutely necessary, and therefore, it is prayed that the application for pre-arrest bail may not be considered at this stage. A detailed statement has also been filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, Central Unit-II, Ernakulam, giving the details of the investigation made so far and the fact that the petitioner has not been co-operating with the investigation.
11. The argument of the learned Counsel based on the decision in Lakeshore Hospital's case (supra) is that the CRZ has not been settled and that the disputed construction could only have been ascertained with the help of a large scale cadastral map, which admittedly has not been prepared for that purpose. Therefore, the petitioner could not know whether the disputed area would fall within the CRZ notification, as it was not settled at that point in time and hence no mala fides of dishonest intention could be attributed to him or the Company and he had no criminal B.A.No. 8399 of 2019 -12- intention to cheat the purchasers, including the defacto complainant. The arguments raised by the Counsel for the petitioner regarding the lack of clarity of CRZ was not accepted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and therefore, he cannot be heard to advance that argument before this Court now.
12. The learned Counsel thereafter relies on certain decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding the granting of pre-arrest bail. He brings to the notice of this Court the Constitution Bench decision in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia & another v. State of Punjab, 1980 KHC 665:
(1980) 2 SCC 565, where, upon consideration of the entire issue, the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down certain salutary principles to be followed in exercising the powers under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. by the Sessions Court and the High Court. It is made clear that the anticipatory bail can be granted at any time so long as the applicant has not been arrested and it is also indicated that the Court must apply its own mind on the question and decide whether the case is made out for granting such relief. It was held that the High Court ought not leave the matter to the Magistrate after the final report has been presented. There is no reason to deny anticipatory bail merely because the the allegations in the case pertains to cheating or forgery of valuable security - (See Ravindra Saxena v. State of Rajasthan, 2010 KHC 246: (2010) 1 SCC 648).B.A.No. 8399 of 2019 -13-
13. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also drew the attention of this Court by relying upon the decision in Amesh Kumar v. State of Bihar & another, 2014 (3) KHC 69:
(2014) 8 SCC 273, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held and issued directions and guidelines for prevention of misuse of of the provisions under Section 498A and cautions that automatic arrest under Section 498A I.P.C. cases cannot be justified. Towards the end of the judgment, referring to the provisions under Sections 41(1)(b) and 41A of Cr.P.C., the Apex Court held that the directions in the aforesaid case shall not only apply to cases under Section 498A of the I.P.C. or Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, which was the case in hand, but also to such cases where the offence is punishable for imprisonment, which may be less than 7 years or which may extent to 7 years, whether with or without fine.
14. The learned Counsel relied upon the decision in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra & others, (2011) 1 SCC 694 in support of his argument for a pre-arrest bail, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus:
"13. It is apparent from the Statement of Objects and Reasons for introducing Section 438 in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 that it was felt imperative to evolve a device by which an alleged accused is not compelled to face ignominy and disgrace at the instance of influential people who try to implicate their rivals in false cases. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 did not contain any specific provision corresponding to the present Section 438 Cr.P.C. The only two clear provisions of law by which bail could B.A.No. 8399 of 2019 -14- be granted were Sections 437 and 439 of the Code. Section 438 was incorporated in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the first time.
14. It is clear from the Statement of Objects and Reasons that the purpose of incorporating Section 438 in the Cr.P.C. was to recognize the importance of personal liberty and freedom in a free and democratic country. When we carefully analyze this section, the wisdom of the legislature becomes quite evident and clear that the legislature was keen to ensure respect for the personal liberty and also pressed in service the age-old principle that an individual is presumed to be innocent till he is found guilty by the court."
15. The argument of the learned State Attorney against granting of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is based on the ground that the petitioner has been evading arrest and interrogation and unless he is interrogated in custody, the important documents pointed out by the State Attorney cannot be accessed by the investigating officer.
16. The Constitution Bench in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia's case (Supra) in para 21 held thus:
"21. xx xx xx A wise exercise of judicial power inevitably takes care of the evil consequences which are likely to flow out of its intemperate use. Every kind of judicial discretion, whatever may be the nature of the matter in regard to which it is required to be exercised, has to be used with due care and caution. In fact, an awareness of the context in which the discretion is required to be exercised and of the reasonably foreseeable consequences of its use, is the hall mark of a prudent exercise of judicial discretion. One ought not to make a bugbear of the power to grant anticipatory bail."
In para 18, the Constitution Bench in the above decision held as thus:
"18. xx xx xx We see no valid reason for re-
writing Section 438 with a view, not to expanding the scope and ambit of the discretion conferred on the B.A.No. 8399 of 2019 -15- High Court and the Court of Session but, for the purpose of limiting it. Accordingly, we are unable to endorse the view of the High Court that anticipatory bail cannot be granted in respect of offences like criminal breach of trust for the mere reason that the punishment provided therefor is imprisonment for life. Circumstances may broadly justify the grant of bail in such cases too, though of course, the Court is free to refuse anticipatory bail in any case if there is material before it justifying such refusal. "
17. In a later decision the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2019 KHC 6886 : AIR 2019 SC 4198 has observed that power under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. being an extra-ordinary remedy has to be exercised sparingly; more so, in cases of economic offences. Economic offences stand as a different class as they affect the economic fabric of the society. The Hon'ble Apex Court has relied on an earlier decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Directorate of Enforcement v. Ashok Kumar Jain, 1998 KHC 518 : (1998) 2 SCC 105 to hold that accused in an economic offences is not entitled to anticipatory bail. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chidambaram's case (supra) held that grant of anticipatory bail at the stage of investigation may frustrate the investigating agency in interrogating the accused and in collecting the useful information and also the matters that might have been concealed. Success in such interrogation will elude if the accused knows that he is protected by the order of the Court. It was observed that granting of anticipatory bail particularly in economic offence will B.A.No. 8399 of 2019 -16- hamper the effective investigation. Therefore, it was held that in that case wherein the Enforcement Directorate was investigating into the offence allegedly committed by an Ex-Finance Minister, and also considering the stage of investigation, it was found that it was not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.
18. Chidambaram's case (supra) was concerning offence punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, and receiving of foreign investments to the tune of Rs.3.5 crores against approved inflow of Rs.4.62 crores.
19. There cannot be an inexorable formula in considering granting of bail. The facts and circumstances in the case would govern the granting of bail. Any one single event cannot be considered for granting or refusal of bail. Going back to Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia's case, it was observed that in regard to anticipatory bail if proposed accusation appears to stem not from motives of furthering the ends of justice; but from some ulterior motive, the object being to injure and humiliate the applicant by having him arrested, a direction for the release of the applicant on bail in the event of his arrest would generally be made. On the other hand, if it appears likely considering the antecedents of the applicant, that taking advantage of the order of anticipatory bail, he will flee from justice, such an order B.A.No. 8399 of 2019 -17- would not be made. Anticipatory bail must usually be granted if there is no fear of the applicant absconding.
20. The learned Counsel appearing for the defacto complainant has strong objection to the granting of bail mainly on the grounds of the finding recorded by the Madras High Court to the effect that the petitioner has obtained an earlier order of anticipatory bail by fraud on the Court and a reading of paras 19 and 20 of the said order indicates that the petitioner had not revealed about his address in Kochi, apart from being a permanent resident of Chennai. It seems that the Court was misled to pass an order of anticipatory bail under the premise that he was a permanent resident of Chennai, with the Company having its registered office there. Therefore, the suppression of facts by the petitioner was held to be objectionable by the Madras High Court and the order of granting anticipatory bail to him was recalled.
21. The aforesaid order of the Madras High Court would in no way interfere with the granting of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by this Court; because, anticipatory bail has to be granted on the basis of merits of each case. Mere fact that he had not revealed his address before the Madras High Court and obtained an order of bail, is not a reason to reject the bail by this Court. In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre's case (supra) it was held that it is imperative for the Courts to carefully and with meticulous B.A.No. 8399 of 2019 -18- precision evaluate the facts of the case. The discretion must be exercised on the basis of the available material and the facts of the particular case. In cases where the court is of the considered view that the accused has joined investigation and he is fully co-operating with the investigating agency and is not likely to abscond, custodial interrogation should be avoided. In the instant case, the petitioner has expressed his willingness to co- operate with the investigation. He apprehends that he may be incarcerated, and hence, approaches this Court for an anticipatory bail.
22. Going by the facts in this case, I do not think that arrest is the only option available to the prosecution in this case. The learned State Attorney Sri.K.V.Sohan has pointed out the aspects which needs consideration from the petitioner by co-operating and producing certain documents pertaining to the investigation. For that purpose alone, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not essential. As held by the Courts, great ignominy, humiliation and disgrace are attached to an arrest, and I do not think that the petitioner is a person, who deserves such an ignominy. The co-accused, who had alleged conspired with the matter to issue the licence/permit, which according to the prosecution he was not entitled to, have already been apprehended and interrogated. Documents pertaining to the granting of permit has already been seized by the police. B.A.No. 8399 of 2019 -19- I find no reason to believe that the petitioner would not co-operate in producing the documents personally with him regarding his account or the Company's account. Documents pertaining to registered sale and Power of Attorney, etc., are something which is available for the investigating officer even from the Registrar's Office.
23. Considering the present pandemic situation, quarantine and social distancing, which may be required and keeping in view of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu W.P.(C) No.1/2020 in Re:Contagion of COVID-19 Virus in Prisons dated 23.03.2020 wherein, after considering the outbreak of COVID-19, hardships faced by the litigants/lawyers, staff in the Courts, convict prisoners, as well as under-trials, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed thus:
"We direct that each State/Union Territory shall constitute a High Powered Committee comprising of (i) Chairman of the State Legal Services Committee, (ii) the Principal Secretary (Home/ Prison) by whatever designation is known as, (iii) Director General of Prison(s), to determine which class of prisoners can be released on parole or an interim bail for such period as may be thought appropriate. For instance, the State/Union Territory could consider the release of prisoners who have been convicted or are undertrial for offences for which prescribed punishment is upto 7 years or less, with or without fine and the prisoner has been convicted for a lesser number of years than the maximum."
Following the decision of the Apex Court, the Full Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.9400/2020 (Suo Motu) has observed thus:
"22. In the event of any arrest, the Constitutional B.A.No. 8399 of 2019 -20- obligation under Article 20(2) shall be followed in letter and spirit. Over-crowding in prisons is one of the issues taken up by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.1/2020. Therefore, the learned Magistrates/Judges before whom the accused is produced, depending upon the nature of offence, shall consider as to whether judicial/police custody is required or not. Needless to state that, bail is the rule and jail is an exception. We make it clear that, the above said directions stand excluded to subjects relating public order/law and order and any action taken by the State Government to combat the outbreak of COVID-19 and actions taken thereof."
24. This Court is of the opinion that the personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India should not, at any rate, be infringed by asking an accused, except in matters where arrest is inevitable. Going by the facts and circumstances of this case, I find that the arrest of the petitioner in this case is not inevitable.
25. Hence, the bail application is allowed and the petitioner is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer within one month. After interrogation and recovery, if any, in the event of his being arrested, he shall be released on bail on execution of a bond for Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One lakh only), with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer, and on the following conditions:
(i) He shall not influence, intimidate witnesses or tamper with evidence;
(ii) He shall appear before the investigating Officer as and when called for, for the purpose of interrogation;B.A.No. 8399 of 2019 -21-
(iii) He shall not go abroad without the permission of the jurisdictional Court and shall surrender his passport before the investigating officer, which shall be produced by the investigating officer before 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.
Sd/-
dkr ASHOK MENON
JUDGE