TENNY JOPPEN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the third accused (A3) in Crime No. 656/2013 of Konny Police Station, Konni, which is now under investigation by a Special team constituted to investigate crimes of similar nature, popularly known as Solar Scam cases. The above crime has been registered for offence punishable under S. 420 read with S. 34 I.P.C. on a complaint filed before the magistrate by one Sreedharan Nair against two persons alleging that they defrauded and cheated him of a sum of Rs. 40 lakhs. Making false promises they induced him to believe that full assistance from Government would be extended to install a Solar energy plant, providing land site in Kinfra Park, Palghat and cheated him of the above sum. Details of the allegations in his complaint for disposal of this petition is not necessary since in my Order dated 22.7.2013 in B.A. 4856/2013 dismissing previous bail application of petitioner it has been stated. Allegations to implicate petitioner later as third accused (A3) can be noted summing it up thus: Petitioner was working as Personal Assistant in the office of the Chief Minister of the State. One among the accused named in the complaint, a lady, who impersonated under a different name, took the complainant to the office of the Chief Minister and introduced him to petitioner, who also then induced him to believe the false promises made by the accused persons named. On the assurances given by petitioner, with whom he had talked over phone earlier at the behest of one among the accused, a sum of Rs. 40 lakhs, after signing of an agreement, was handed over to the accused to meet the initial expenses for installing the solar plant. According to the complainant when he went to the office of Chief Minister with one among the accused named in his complaint he had met the Chief Minister and Officers also and he was made to believe that all assistance for the solar plant will be provided by the Government.

(2.) Petitioner was arrested on 28.6.2013, and on production before the magistrate he was remanded to judicial custody on the same day. His continued detention for the purpose of investigation is not necessary and he is ready and willing to abide by any condition imposed by this court, is the submission of his counsel to seek his release on bail.

(3.) Learned Advocate General who appeared on behalf of the State submitted that though investigation of the crime is not over, it is complete against the petitioner and as such there is no objection in releasing him on bail on imposing stringent conditions, suggesting them also.