Antony P.Joseph vs State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 11175 Ker

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                           PRESENT
           THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944
                 BAIL APPL. NO. 9484 OF 2022
   Crime No.1019/2022 of Mararikkulam Police Station,
                      Alappuzha District


PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

          ANTONY P.JOSEPH
          AGED 42 YEARS
          PUTHUPARAMBIL, CHITTARIKKAL
          KASARGOD, KERALA - 671 326, PIN - 671326
          BY ADVS.
          S.GOPAKUMAR
          T.M.BINITHA
          SANTOSH DANIEL S
RESPONDENT/STATE:
     1    STATE OF KERALA
          REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
          KERALA, PIN - 682031
  ADDL.2 PRADEES MADHAVAN
          S/O MADHAVAN,KARIMBAKANDY HOUSE, NEAR NAYAROTTU
          TEMPLE,KOTTAPPALLI P.O, KOZHIKKODE, PIN-683542
          ( IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 30.11.2022 IN
          CRL.M.A. NO.1/2022)
          BY ADVS.SUNIL KUMAR
          S.SANDEEP (S-3458)
          RAJEESH V.R.
          NIDHEESH P.
          RAKESH R.
OTHER PRESENT:

          PP- M.C.ASHI
    THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 02.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 B.A. No.9484 of 2022                :2:




                        VIJU ABRAHAM, J.
         -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
                       B.A. No.9484 of 2022
         -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
             Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2022

                                    ORDER

This is an application for anticipatory bail.

2. The petitioner is accused No.3 in Crime No.1019/2022 of

Mararikkulam Police Station, Alappuzha District, alleging

commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 383,

395 and 120 B r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The prosecution allegation is that, the 1 st and 2nd accused

accepted Rs.10 lakhs on different occasions along with gold

ornaments worth Rs.5 lakhs, in order to cheat the defacto

complainant and further alleged that during April 2022 while the

1st accused was travelling from Bahrain to her home, she has taken

away i-Phone of the defacto complainant worth more than one lakh

rupees and later, when he enquired about the phone, demanded

Rs.35 lakhs and alleged to have threatened to send photo and video

to the wife of the defacto complainant. Hence the above crime was

registered based on a private complaint lodged by the defacto

complainant and thereby committed the aforesaid offences.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that he is a witness in

Annexure A2 crime and as retaliation and also as an preemptive

attempt to escape from the offences charged against the defacto

complainant in the said crime, the present crime has been

registered implicating the petitioner herein as the 3 rd accused

which was registered based on a private complaint preferred by the

defacto complainant. The learned counsel for the petitioner

submitted that accused Nos. 1 and 2 have already been granted

anticipatory bail by this Court by Annexure A3 order. It is also

submitted that even going by the prosecution allegation, the

allegation against the petitioner is that he has aided accused Nos.

1 and 2 for the commission of the offences.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application for

bail mainly contending that the allegation against the petitioner is

that he has aided the commission of the alleged offences.

6. The defacto complainant entered appearance through

counsel and filed a detailed counter affidavit mainly contending

that the petitioner along with other accused, with an intention to

cheat and extort money from the defacto complainant, executed the

commission of the present crime. It is also submitted that the

defacto complainant is a businessman having various

establishments in Bahrain and the petitioner herein was made a

partner in his business and later on his advice, various staffs were

recruited to the hotel business including the 1 st accused. Under

the direction of the 3 rd accused(the petitioner herein) the 1st

accused induced the petitioner to start a relationship with him.

Thereafter some business disputes occurred between the defacto

complainant and the petitioner and due to the mismanagement of

the petitioner, the defacto complainant had to face legal issues and

huge loss in his business and it is thereafter that the 1 st accused

has preferred a complaint as Crime No.425/2022 alleging

commission of offences punishable under Sections 354, 354(A)(2)

(1) r/w 354(A)(1)(i)(ii), 509, 506(i), 376, 376(2)(k)(n) and 313 of

IPC. It is only when the accused demanded huge amounts, that the

private complaint was preferred by the defacto complainant and

based on which the present crime was registered.

7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case

and considering the nature of the allegations, and the fact that

accused Nos. 1 and 2 have already been granted anticipatory bail,

I am of the opinion that custodial interrogation of the petitioner

may not be required for the purpose of investigation and only a

limited custody be granted for the said purpose. Therefore, I am

inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to stringent

conditions. In the result, this application is allowed. It is directed

that the petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer

on 09.12.2022, at 11 a.m, and subject himself for interrogation on

that day and on any other day/days as directed by the investigating

officer. The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation. In

the event of arrest in Crime No.1019/2022 of Mararikkulam Police

Station, Alappuzha District, he shall be produced before the

jurisdictional Court on the very same day and shall be released on

bail, subject to the following conditions:-

(i) Petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of

Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two

solvent sureties each for the like-sum to the

satisfaction of the jurisdictional court ;

           (ii)   The    petitioner      shall    appear     before     the

           investigating    officer    in    Crime      No.1019/2022     of

Mararikkulam Police Station, Alappuzha District , on

every Saturday, at 11 am, until the filing of the final

report;

(iii) Petitioner shall appear before the investigating

officer in Crime No.1019/2022 of Mararikkulam

Police Station, Alappuzha District as and when

summoned to do so;

(iv) The petitioner shall not attempt to contact the

victim or the defacto complainant or interfere with

the investigation or to influence or intimidate any

witness in Crime No.1019/2022 of Mararikkulam

Police Station, Alappuzha District;

(v) The petitioner shall not involve in any other crime

while on bail.

If any of the aforesaid conditions are violated, the

investigating officer in Crime No.1019/2022 of Mararikkulam

Police Station, Alappuzha District may file an application before the

jurisdictional Court, for cancellation of bail.

It is made clear that it is within the power of the police to

investigate the matter and if necessary to effect recoveries on the

information if any given by the petitioner, even when the petitioner

is on bail as per the judgment of the Apex Court in Sushila

Aggarwal and others v. State(NCT of Delhi) and

another(2020(1)KHC 663).

Sd/-

VIJU ABRAHAM JUDGE sm/