Renju George v. State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019 / 5TH ASWINA, 1941 BAIL APPL.NO.6298 OF 2019 CRIME NO.1226/2019 OF ETTUMANOOR POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** **RENJU GEORGE, AGED 32 YEARS, D/O GEORGE DEVASYA,W/O BINOY, PULIKKUZHIYIL HOUSE,PERUVA.P.O, MULAKULAM VILLAGE,VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM-686610. BY ADV. SRI.K.T.SAJU** ## **RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:** |**1**|**THE STATE OF KERALA,**| |---|---| ||**THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER,**| ||**ETTUMANOOR POLICE STATION,**| ||**REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,**| ||**HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM-682031.**| |**2**|**LAIJI SANTHOSH, AGED 41 YEARS,**| ||**W/O SANTHOSH, KOODATHUMUKKIL HOUSE,**| ||**AMAYANNOOR.P.O, KOTTAYAM-686019.**| ||**SRI.AMJAD ALI, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR R1**| ||**SRI.S.RANJIT (KOTTAYAM), SRI.BINU JOHN,**| ||**SRI.ABHILASH BHASKAR, SRI.M.R.ANISON,**| ||**SRI.GOKUL DAS V.V.H.,**| **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.09.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** ## ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. ----------------------------------B.A. No. 6298 of 2019 ----------------------------------Dated this the 27[th] day of September, 2019 ## O R D E R The petitioner herein has been arrayed as the sole accused in the instant Crime No.1226/2019 of Ettumanoor Police Station, which has been registered for the offences punishable under Sec. 420 of the IPC, on the basis of the FIS given by the 2[nd] respondent lady defacto complainant. 2. The prosecution case in short is that, the petitioner aged 32 years and the 2[nd] respondent lady defacto complainant aged 41 years are qualified nurses, and that with the intention to cheat and to make unlawful gain from the defacto complainant, the petitioner had promised her that she would be provided with Tier 2 General Sponsorship Visa for the job of Nursing Care Assistant in Prest Wick Company in United Kingdom, and had made her to deposit Rs.49,000/- in the account of the accused on 31.1.2019, and thereafter had received Rs.1,01,000/- on the same day and in the third week of March, 2019, the accused had collected Rs.55,000/and on 3.5.2019 the accused had received Rs.74,000/- from the 2[nd] respondent defacto complainant. Further that on 15.6.2019 she made the defacto complainant to transfer Rs.3,600/- from the B.A. No. 6298 of 2019 **==> picture [19 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** account of her father to the bank account of the accused and thus collected a total amount of Rs.2,82,600/-. Thereafter the petitioner accused has neither provided the job visa nor had taken steps to return back the money, or the Passport of the defacto complainant which she collected and entrusted the agent, and thereby she has committed the abovesaid offences. 3. The counsel for the petitioner would point out that the abovesaid allegations are false and fabricated, and further that as a matter of fact the 2[nd] respondent was actually provided with Anx.3 visa, and that for reasons only known to the 2[nd] respondent, she has refused to get the benefits of said visa. 4. Per contra, the counsel for the 2[nd] respondent defacto complainant would submit that his party has never been provided with a visa, and that Anx.3 is a fabricated document, only to wriggle out of the financial and criminal liabilities. Further, the counsel for the 2[nd] respondent would submit that, the 2[nd] respondent is seriously opposing the plea for anticipatory bail and if in any chance, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail, then it should be ensured as a condition, that the petitioner should atleast deposit the abovesaid amount of Rs.2,82,600/- before the competent trial court concerned B.A. No. 6298 of 2019 ..4.. within a short time, and that in case the petitioner does not deposit the abovesaid amount, then such conduct of the petitioner should be a ground for cancellation of bail. 5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that Anx.3 document is not a fabricated document and a genuine one, and further that, even going by the admitted prosecution allegations, she has actually received only Rs.58,600/- in her account, and that this Court insisted the petitioner to deposit said amount of Rs.58,600/before the trial court etc. 6. The parties have expressed their desire to settle the disputes through mediation process, that may be conducted by the District Mediation Centre, Kottayam, since both the parties are based in Kottayam district. This Court suggested that the petitioner should deposit atleast 50% of the abovesaid amount of Rs.2,82,600/- before the trial court, and both sides have now agreed to the said figure and this court was successful enough to persuade both sides to accept the said figure as a via media. The learned Prosecutor has also no serious objections in the grant of anticipatory bail, provided the petitioner deposits the said amount suggested by this Court, and that this Court should specifically order that in case the petitioner does not deposit B.A. No. 6298 of 2019 **==> picture [18 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** the said amount within the said time limit, then the Investigating Officer and/or the defacto complainant is authorized to file an application for cancellation of bail, etc. 5. Further, the learned Prosecutor would point out that the petitioner will have to immediately co-operate with the I.O., in the interrogation processes. 6. Hence the following directions and orders are passed. - _i. The petitioner will immediately personally appear before the Investigating Officer(I.O.) in relation to the abovesaid Crime for interrogation purposes without any further delay at any rate by 9 am on any day on or before 14.10.2019, or within such time limit that may be extended by the I.O. as he deems fit and proper._ - _ii. The petitioner will fully co-operate with the Investigating Officer in the conduct of the above interrogation process, and should also make available all documents in her custody, and will also get liberty to convince the I.O., about the genuineness of Anx.3 document, and may also give other details to show that Anx.3 is a genuine document._ - _iii. After the interrogation process is over, in case the Investigating Officer arrests the petitioner in relation to the abovesaid crime, then she shall be released on bail on executing bond for Rs.40,000/and on furnishing two solvent sureties for the like sum, each to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer concerned._ ## 7. Further it is also ordered that the grant of bail will be subject to following conditions:- B.A. No. 6298 of 2019 ..6.. - _i. The petitioner shall not involve in any criminal offences of similar nature._ - _ii. The petitioner shall fully co-operate with the investigation._ - _iii. The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer as and when required in that connection._ - _iv. The petitioner shall not influence witness or shall not tamper or attempt to tamper evidence in any manner, whatsoever._ - _v. The petitioner shall not go or visit anywhere near the residence or workplace of the lady defacto complainant until the conclusion of trial._ - _vi. The petitioner shall deposit an amount of Rs.1,41,300/- before the JFCM-I, Ettumanoor, Kottayam district, within two months from today._ 8. Further it is ordered that, in the event of the petitioner not depositing the amount before the said trial court within the said time limit, then the bail granted to the petitioner hereby is liable to be cancelled, and in which case, it will be open to the Investigating Officer and/or the lady defacto complainant to file appropriate application before the learned Magistrate for cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner hereby. 9. In view of the desire expressed by both sides, it is further ordered that the Magistrate Court concerned will ensure that upon payment of said amount, the said amount is placed in a fixed deposit with the B.A. No. 6298 of 2019 **==> picture [18 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** treasury so as to bear the maximum interest that could be offered in treasury deposit scheme. 10. Further it is ordered that, the petitioner accused and the 2[nd] respondent lady defacto complainant will personally report before the Co-ordinator of the District Mediation Centre, Kottayam, at 10.30 am on 19.10.2019, upon which the parties will be referred to a Mediator on the same day, who will commence the mediation process immediately, and endeavour to complete the same within 6 weeks time. The Mediator will furnish the report on the final outcome of mediation process immediately thereafter to the District Mediation Centre. In case the mediation process is successful, both the parties should sign in the said mediation settlement agreement. The Mediation Centre will ensure that copies of mediation process are given to the petitioner and the 2[nd] respondent, as well as the Investigating Officer concerned, and a copy of the same may also be forwarded to this Court, upon which the Registry will ensure that the same is placed in this case file. 11. The counsel for the petitioner would submit that, in case the mediation process is successful, then the petitioner would be advised to move an appropriate application before this Court under B.A. No. 6298 of 2019 **==> picture [20 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashment of impugned criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between the parties. 12. It will be open to the parties concerned to work out their remedies in the manner known to law. This Court does not enter into that arena because, as of now the mediation process has not even commenced. With these observations and directions, the above Bail Application will stand disposed of. Sd/- ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE MMG