Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 293 (KER)

Santhosh K. v. State of Kerala

2021-03-16

ASHOK MENON

body2021
ORDER : Ashok Menon, J. 1. Application filed under Section 438, Cr.P.C. for anticipatory bail. 2. The applicant is the sole accused in Crime No. 544 of 2020 of Infopark Police Station for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 406, 417, 420, 468 and 500 of the I.P.C. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the applicant had dishonestly induced the de facto complainant to deliver huge sums of money running into crores of rupees making him believe that he would be made a partner in the business venture started by the applicant in Kuwait and Singapore. Promising to pay good returns the applicant had also induced the de facto complainant to transfer rupees one crore into the account of one Rajan, who was introduced by the applicant to the de facto complainant, stating that the said Rajan is involved in financial trading. Promises were also given by the applicant about starting a company in Singapore assuring good returns. The de facto complainant was made to believe that the applicant is a close relative of the Pandalam Raja and that he could arrange purchase of huge tracts of land in Pandalam. Documents were created by the applicant for the purpose of cheating the de facto complainant and he misappropriated the entire amount in this transfer by the de facto complainant. That apart, the applicant also defamed the de facto complainant and his wife. 4. The applicant states that the allegations are untrue and unsustainable. The applicant and the de facto complainant were colleagues working together in a company from 2009 to 2013. The de facto complainant started a company named High-tech Equipments in the year 2013. He offered a job to the applicant in his company after the applicant had resigned from the company in which he was employed. No monetary transactions had taken place between the applicant and the de facto complainant during the period he was an employee under the de facto complainant. In the year 2014, the applicant started an independent venture named Royal Westline based in Kuwait and the de facto complainant was also made a partner in that firm. Thereafter, the applicant and the de facto complainant started another company named Q8 Management Consultancy based in Singapore as partners. The de facto complainant did not transfer any amount to the applicant as alleged. A sum of Rs. Thereafter, the applicant and the de facto complainant started another company named Q8 Management Consultancy based in Singapore as partners. The de facto complainant did not transfer any amount to the applicant as alleged. A sum of Rs. 43 lakhs was transferred to the account of the applicant towards salary due from High-tech Equipments during the year 2018-2019. Thereafter, the applicant started another company with the person named Gopakumar under the name and style Westline High-Tech Products and Services India Pvt. Ltd. The de facto complainant showed no interest or desire to join that company. His proposal to join the venture in India came at the point when he was disowned by his sponsor in Kuwait as a result of which he lost access to the company's bank account. The applicant also states that an employee named Hari Krishnan was fired from the company as it was found that he was indulging in malpractices and misappropriation of funds. He has also played a major role in manipulating the de facto complainant. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. He is willing to co-operate with the investigation. There is no need for any custodial interrogation and therefore he seeks pre-arrest bail. 5. The de facto complainant was impleaded as the 2nd respondent, who has appeared and filed a detailed counter objection reiterating his case mentioned in the complaint. He has also produced documents to indicate the fraud deployed by the applicant in misleading him by sending WhatsApp messages. It is submitted that the applicant may abscond and therefore, he may not be granted pre-arrest bail. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri M. Revikrishnan, the counsel appearing for the defacto complainant Sri. Saiby Jose Kidangoor and the learned Prosecutor Smt. V. Sreeja. Records perused. 7. It is an admitted fact that the applicant and the de facto complainant had business transactions in Kuwait and Singapore. The nature of the transactions as stated by the applicant and the de facto complainant varies. What exactly is the transaction and to what extent the applicant is liable to the de facto complainant in financial terms, are not specified with precision. Documentary evidence will have to be relied upon to find that out. Whether the transaction is entirely civil in nature or whether it was cheating as alleged by the de facto complainant is something to be investigated and found out. Documentary evidence will have to be relied upon to find that out. Whether the transaction is entirely civil in nature or whether it was cheating as alleged by the de facto complainant is something to be investigated and found out. The custodial interrogation of the applicant is insisted upon by the de facto complainant and the learned Prosecutor under the apprehension that he may flee from justice and may not be available for questioning. The applicant has ensured his appearance before the investigating officer. In case the transactions had taken place in Kuwait, permission of the Central Government as contemplated under Section 188, Cr.P.C. may also be required before the enquiry/investigation and trial. At the moment, I find no reason to hold that the applicant is likely to abscond. Stringent conditions can be imposed to ensure his availability in the Country. 8. Under the circumstances, the application is allowed and the applicant is directed to surrender before the investigating officer within three weeks. In the event of his arrest, he shall be released on bail on execution of bond for Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) with two solvent sureties for like amount each to the satisfaction of the investigating officer and on following conditions: 1. The applicant shall appear before the investigating officer on all Saturdays between 9 a.m. and 12 noon for a period of three months or till filing of the final report whichever is earlier. 2. The applicant shall surrender his passport before the jurisdictional Court and shall not go abroad without the permission of the said Court. The release of the passport shall also be considered by the said Court as and when necessary. The applicant shall furnish his address and telephone No. to the investigating officer. 3. The applicant shall not tamper with evidence, intimidate or influence witnesses. 4. The applicant shall not get involved in any similar crime during the currency of the bail. In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the prosecution is at liberty to seek cancellation of the bail before the jurisdictional Court.