RENJU P.GEORGE Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the 3rd accused in crime 18/2020 of Manarcadu police station in Kottayan district. That crime was registered alleging offence under Section 420 read with 34 of the IPC alleging that the petitioner along with other accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention, had collected an amount of Rs.2,94,500/- from the defacto complainant offering her employment abroad as a nurse and later employment was not arranged and on that basis the crime was registered on the strength of the first information statement given by one Bincymol A.K. During the course of investigation, the petitioner moved the Sessions Court with a petition under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. seeking pre-arrest bail which was allowed by order dated 04.03.2021 in Crl.M.P. No.179/2021. In that order, marked as Annexure-A2, the learned Sessions Judge found that there are materials to indicate that the petitioner/3rd accused also was a victim of the foul play committed by accused Nos.1 and 2, that they had collected money from the petitioner as well, offering employment abroad. On that premise, accepting her version and also taking into account that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not warranted, she was granted anticipatory bail stating that, in the event of arrest she shall execute a bond for Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties; she shall also co-operate with the investigation, shall appear before the Investigating Officer once in a week for a period of one month and once in two weeks for a further period of one month, on Wednesdays between 10 and 11 a.m. and thereafter, as and when required by the Investigating Officer. Some other conditions were also incorporated as usual. Later, alleging that the petitioner did not comply with those conditions, the Investigating Officer moved the Sessions Court by filing an application for cancelling the bail. The learned Sessions Judge heard the petition and by Annexure-A3 order dated 24.08.2021 allowed the same and bail granted to her was cancelled. Aggrieved by that order the petitioner has moved this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

(2.) I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was absolutely no direction to surrender before the Investigating Officer which is usual in an order granting anticipatory bail, that she is presently working as staff nurse in Delhi and due to covid restrictions she could not come down to Kottayam to the police station, that she was under a bona fide belief that she was required to comply with condition No.2 only after execution of the bail bond. It was also reiterated that she is one among the victims of the deceit played by accused Nos.1 and 2. Moreover, she submitted that she is a single parent, the mother of a minor girl child and there is no one to look after the child. On these considerations, the learned counsel prayed that Annexure-A3 order may be quashed.