IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN FRIDAY,THE10H DAY OF JANUARY201420TH POUSHA, 1935 Bail Appl..No. 80 of 2014 () ----------------------------- CRIME NO. 1896/2013 OF PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA ----------------------- PETITIONER/ACCUSED : ------------------------------------ LITTLE SHAIKE AGED25YEARS, S/O. SAIN ALAVUDDEEN, PANDIYAR HOUSE, PATHANAMTHITTA P.O. BY ADV. SRI.JESWIN P.VARGHESE RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT : --------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. P. MAYA THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON1001-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Mn P. BHAVADASAN, J.
--------------------------------------- B.A. No.80 of 2014 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of January, 2014. ORDER
Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.1896 of 2013 of Pathanamthitta Police Station, who is alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 506(1) IPC and Sections 13 and 17 of Money Lenders Act read with Section 9 of Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act.
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that, the defacto complaint had borrowed Rupees One lakh from the petitioner and she had paid Rs.10,000/- as interest on every 15 days and she repaid almost Rupees Four lakhs for the amount borrowed by her. The accused, for satisfaction of debt, now demanded two lakhs and therefore the complaint had been given.
3. The petitioner would point out that the allegations are totally false and made with ulterior motive. It is also pointed out that it is only with the intention of escaping from repayment of the loan taken by her, the complaint was laid. It is emphasized that the complaint was laid long after the incident and that shows the hollowness of the complaint.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor only pointed out that the B.A. No.80 of 2014 2 investigation is still going on.
6. After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor and also after having perused the records, there seems to be considerable force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is seen from the records that certain documents were received by the petitioner from the defacto complainant. The fact remains that the loan has been availed of by the defacto complainant. As to the consequences thereof or regarding the veracity of the allegations, a deeper probe is not warranted at this point of time. Taking the totality of the circumstances into consideration, the long delay in lodging the complainant etc., it is felt that this is a fit case where the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court needs to be exercised in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, this application is allowed on the following conditions: i) The petitioners shall surrender before the Investigating Officer on or before 22.01.2014 who, after interrogation, shall produce them before the Court concerned, which court, on application for bail being moved by the petitioners, shall release them on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum B.A. No.80 of 2014 3 each to the satisfaction of the Court concerned. ii) The Court concerned shall ensure the identity of the sureties and also the veracity of the tax receipts produced by them. iii) The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer on every Wednesday between 9 a.m and 10 a.m until further orders. iv) The petitioner shall not tamper or attempt to tamper with the evidence or influence or try to influence the witness. vi) If any of the condition is violated, the bail granted shall stand cancelled and the Court concerned, on being satisfied of the said fact, may take such steps as are available to it in law. Sd/- P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sp //True Copy// P.A. to Judge