ANNIE CUCKOO MELVIN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The petitioner is the 2 nd accused involved in Crime No.2067/2018 of Adoor Police Station, Pathanamthitta District. The aforesaid crime was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 468, 467, 420 and 506 r/w Section 34 IPC.

(2.) The allegation of the prosecution was that the petitioner along with her husband had collected huge amounts viz, Rs.5,10,00,000/- from the defacto complainant one Sujith Simon promising to make him a partner in a firm conducted by the first accused under the name and style "M/s.Annz Impex General Trading LLC". The promise of the first accused was that he would pay the share profit of the business of the firm to the defacto complainant. They made the defacto complainant believe that the firm is engaged in supply of waste papers to Hindustan News Print Limited. The agreement entered among the parties as per the prosecution was that the petitioner would repay Rs.5,50,000,00/- and thereby make him to earn a profit of Rs.40 lakhs. After collecting Rs.5,10,00,000/- from the defacto complainant in several instalments, the petitioner issued cheques. When frequent demands were made, an agreement was entered into among the parties whereby the repayment of the full amount was agreed to be made within a time period. The repayment was defaulted within the time frame as agreed and thereafter the defacto complainant has lodged FIS before the Adoor Police Station with a view to set the law in motion. Based on the first information statement, the crime in question was registered. Now the first accused is arrested and he is in custody. This application is moved by the 2 nd accused, the wife of the first accused on her apprehension of being arrested and harassed by the Adoor Police in the crime.

(3.) Sri.V.Philip Mathews, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the allegations are devoid of any basis. According to him none of the offences alleged against the petitioner would be attracted from the allegations levelled in the first information statement. Even if the allegations would be attracted, the contention of the learned counsel was that the petitioner being the wife of the first accused, who was the Manager of the company concerned, has no serious role in the conduct of the business. According to him, the copy of the deed of partnership produced along with the bail application as Annexure A1 would disclose that. Inviting the attention of this Court to Annexure A1, it is contended by the counsel that the contribution of the petitioner towards the capital of the firm is only nominal when compared to the contribution made by her husband, who is the first accused in the case. According to him the first accused is now in custody and if at all any materials are required to be collected by the investigating officer, it could easily be done through him and the availability of the petitioner in custody would not improve the investigation in any way. It is also contended by the learned counsel that the defacto complainant has threatened the petitioner severally and based on that, a complaint was made against the defacto complainant at the Peroorkkada Police Station, but, a crime was not registered by the police till date. But on the contrary, the custody of the first petitioner was taken in the crime in question. He had also invited my attention to Annexure A14 receipt to support his contention that the complaint lodged by this petitioner before the Peroorkkada Police Station was received by them. Raising the arguments as above the learned counsel pleaded for a release of him on bail in the event of his arrest.