Kerala High Court
Unknown vs By Advs.Sri.P.B.Sahasranaman on 25 May, 2018
Author: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
Bench: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE 2018 / 4TH ASHADHA, 1940
Bail Appl..No. 3937 of 2018
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMP 2969/2018 of DIST & SESSIONS COURT,
ALAPPUZHA DATED 25-05-2018
CRIME NO. 289/2011 OF NOORANADU POLICE STATION , ALAPPUZHA
PETITIONER(S)/3RD ACCUSED
RAJAN THOMAS,
AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. THOMAS, PUTHENVEETTIL, VAZHUVADI MURI,
THAZHAKKARA P.O., MAVELIKARA, ALAPPUZHA - 690 102.
BY ADVS.SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN
SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR
RESPONDENT(S)/THE STATE AND THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER:
1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.
2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
NOORANADU POLICE STATION, NOORANADU P.O., ALAPPUZHA - 690
504.
3. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, ALAPPUZHA - 688 001.
R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.N.PRABHAKARAN.
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25-06-2018,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
AL/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, J
--------------------------------------
B.A No.3937 of 2018
---------------------------------------
Dated this the 25th day of June, 2018
ORDER
The 3rd accused in Crime No.289 of 2011 of Nooranadu Police Station has approached this Court with this application under sections 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He is accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 419, 466, 467, 471, 474 and 420 r/w. Sec.34 of the IPC.
2. The de facto complainant and his wife owned 18.30 Ares of property which was situated in Nooranadu village. In the year 2006, while he was working abroad, his wife was in urgent need of money. During this period, the applicant is alleged to have approached the wife of the de facto complainant and offered to advance money. He managed to obtain certain signed documents from the wife of the de facto complainant. As the wife of the de facto complainant was illiterate, she was not able to understand the devious plans of the accused. It is further alleged that the 1st accused took the wife of the de facto complainant to B.A No.3937 of 2018 2 the Nooranadu Sub Registry and managed to obtain a sale deed registered in his favour as Document No.2373 of 2006. Thereafter, in the year 2008, the property was transferred by the 1st accused in the name of the 2nd accused. The 2nd accused thereafter mortgaged the property and obtained a loan of Rs. 18 lakhs from the Oriental Bank of Commerce, Kottayam. The loan was defaulted and the Bank initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. It is at this stage that the de facto complainant came to know about the acts of the accused. He came down to India and instituted a suit. Stating these allegations, a complaint was filed in the year 2011 before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II, Mavelikkara, leading to the registration of the Crime.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the wife of the de facto complainant had approached him through one Indira and requested for advancement of a loan. The transaction that the wife of the de facto complainant had was with the 1st accused. According to the learned counsel, the Crime was registered in the year 2011 and B.A No.3937 of 2018 3 on numerous occasions the applicant was summoned and he was questioned. He may be spared from the rigors of custodial interrogation is the submission.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor has very strenuously opposed the prayer. It is submitted that the applicant herein had a major role to play and it is also suspected that he was the person who impersonated as the de facto complainant. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the investigation was taken over by the Deputy Superintendent of Police and the applicant needs to be questioned in a scientific manner.
5. I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the case diary. Even according to the de facto complainant, his wife was deceived by the 1 st accused and it was he who had managed to get the sale deed executed and registered in his favour by impersonating the de facto complainant. The 1st accused has been arrested on 4.5.2018. Insofar as the applicant herein is concerned, the allegation is that he had approached the wife of the de facto complainant and B.A No.3937 of 2018 4 offered to provide a loan of Rs. One lakh and had taken copies of documents. From the complaint, it appears that no other acts are attributed to the applicant.
6. Having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations, the role attributed to the applicant, the materials in support thereof and the stage of investigation, I am of the considered view that the custodial interrogation of the applicant is not necessary for an effective investigation.
7. In the result, this application will stand allowed. The applicant shall appear before the investigating officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation. Thereafter, if he is proposed to be arrested, he shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum. The above order shall be subject to the following conditions:
i)The applicant shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Saturdays between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m., for two months or till final report is filed, whichever is earlier.
ii)The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any B.A No.3937 of 2018 5 inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/ her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer.
iii)The applicant shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.
iv)The applicant shall not leave India without the permission of the Court and if having passport, shall deposit the same before the Trial Court within a week; If release of the passport is required at a later period, the applicant shall be at liberty to move appropriate application before the Court having jurisdiction.
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.
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE al/-25/6. xx