Venugopal v. State of Kerala and Others

1 Bail Application No. 10219 of 2022 ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` FRIDAY, THE 5[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 16TH CHAITHRA, 1946 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 10219 OF 2022 ``` ``` CRIME NO.691/2022 OF Mannarghat Police Station, Palakkad PETITIONER/S: ``` ``` VENUGOPAL , AGED 50 YEARS S/O NARAYANAGUPTHAN,MANGALAMKUNNU, CHERUPLASSERY,PALAKKAD, PIN - 679514 ``` ``` BY ADVS. RENJITH B.MARAR LAKSHMI.N.KAIMAL ARUN POOMULLI PREETHA S CHANDRAN ABHIJITH SREEKUMAR JOSEPH KIRAN D. THEKKEKARA ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** - **`1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031`** - **`2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER , MANNARGHAT POLICE STATION,PALAKKAD., PIN - 678582`** - **`3 V. K UNNIKAMMU, S/O KAMMUKUTTY, KALLADI VILLA, PERIMBADARI, MANNARKAD, PALAKKAD- (INTERVENOR)`** ``` BY ADV BIMALA BABY -R3 ``` ``` Sr PP Sri C.S Hrithwik- R1 AND R2 ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON ``` ``` 05.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 2 Bail Application No. 10219 of 2022 ## **C.S.DIAS,J** ## **======================** ## **Bail Application No. 10219 of 2022** **-----------------------------------** ## **Dated this the 5[th] day of April, 2024** ## **O R D E R** The application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for an order of pre-arrest bail. 2. The petitioner is the first accused in crime No.691/2022 of the Mannarghat Police Station, Palakkad, registered against the accused for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Secs.406 and 420 read with Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The crux of the prosecution case is that, the accused, in furtherance of their common intention, had collected money from the de facto complainant to the tune of Rs.42/- Lakh on 3 Bail Application No. 10219 of 2022 different occasions by offering an interest at the rate of 6% per annum. However, the accused did not pay the interest or return the money. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 4. Heard; Sri.Renjith B.Marar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.C.S Hrithwik, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor and Smt.Bimala Baby, the learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant/intervenor. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. In a series of cases filed against the petitioner for allegedly committing similar offences, this Court, by Annexures A2 to A4 orders, has granted orders of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. The petitioner is entitled to the benefit 4 Bail Application No. 10219 of 2022 of a similar order. The petitioner’s custodial interrogation is not necessary and no recovery is to be effected. Moreover, a reading of Annexure A1 FIR would substantiate that the transactions occurred between 14.1.2019 to 30.6.2019 and Annexure A1 FIR was registered on 20.10.2022. This by itself shows that the petitioner is entitled to an order of pre-arrest bail. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. He submitted that the petitioner’s custodial interrogation is necessary. Nonetheless, he did not dispute the fact that this Court has already granted orders of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner by Annexures A2 to A4. 7. The learned counsel for the intervenor also opposed the application. She submitted that the petitioner’s custodial 5 Bail Application No. 10219 of 2022 interrogation is necessary. If the petitioner is granted an order of pre-arrest bail, it would hamper the investigation. 8. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the facts and the materials placed on record, especially on perusing Annexures A2 to A4 orders passed by this Court in favour of the petitioner with respect to similar crimes registered by different Police stations in the State, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of a similar order. In the result, the application is allowed on the following conditions: (i) The petitioner is directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and on such surrender, the Investigating Officer shall interrogate the petitioner. In the event of the petitioner’s arrest, the 6 Bail Application No. 10219 of 2022 Investigating Officer shall produce the petitioner before the jurisdictional Court on the date of surrender itself. (ii) On such production, the jurisdictional Court shall release the petitioner on bail on him executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. (iii) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required; (iv) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or procure to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any Police Officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner, whatsoever; 7 Bail Application No. 10219 of 2022 (v) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while he is on bail; (vi) In case of violation of any of the conditions mentioned above, the jurisdictional court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation of bail, if any filed, and pass orders on the same, in accordance with law. (vii) Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall also be filed and entertained by the court below. (viii) Needless to mention, it would be well within the powers of the Investigating Officer to investigate the matter and, if necessary, to effect recoveries on the information, if any, given by the petitioner even while the petitioner is on bail as 8 Bail Application No. 10219 of 2022 laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Sushila Aggarwal** **v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another [2020 (1) KHC 663].** sd/- Sks/5.4.2024 **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE**