SUNIL DATH Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the 1st accused in Crime No. 354/2014 of Balussery Police Station, Kozhikode district, for offences punishable under Sections 120B and 420 of IPC read with Section 17 of the Kerala Money Lenders Act. The crime was registered on the basis of the private complaint filed before the court below, which was forwarded under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. The gist of the prosecution allegation is that the accused, three in number, viz., the petitioner herein and his wife (A2) and one Sreekant (A3) were conducting chitty business in the name, "S.P. Vayshnava Chits Pvt. Ltd., Balussery", without proper licence and authority and that the aforementioned firm had collected different amounts from different persons making them believe that they have secured valid licence to conduct chitty. The de facto complainant is one of the office assistants and she had also joined the chitty and according to her, the amount was not returned, though she had paid all the instalments.

(2.) SRI . S. Rajeev, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the allegations emanating from the aforementioned crime are purely related to commercial transactions and that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this crime and that accused No. 3 (Sreekant) was granted anticipatory bail by this Court by Annexure II order dated 18.6.2014 in B.A. No. 4526/2014 and that the 2nd accused (the petitioner's wife) was also granted anticipatory bail and the petitioner's anticipatory bail application was rejected by this Court, as per Annexure -I order on 4.7.2014 rendered in B.A. No. 4762/2014. Sri. S. Rajeev, the learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the petitioner herein was unaware of Annexure -II order rendered on 18.6.2014 granted in favour of A -3, when the petitioner's Annexure -I application was considered by this Court on 4.7.2014 and that he came to know of it only subsequently. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the issuance of Annexure -II order in favour of accused No. 3 is thus a development, which came to his knowledge subsequently and therefore, there is material change in the circumstances and that his plea of pre -arrest bail may be allowed, in the interest of justice.

(3.) HAVING considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and on evaluation of the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is inclined to adopt the same course of action as the one taken recourse to in the order dated 15.7.2014 in B.A. No. 5030/2014 to effectuate fair and proper conduct of the investigation, instead of straightaway granting anticipatory bail petitioner. Accordingly, it is ordered that: