Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943 BAIL APPL. NO. 8500 OF 2021 CRIME NO.1087 OF 2021 OF TIRUR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM PETITIONERS:
1 THOUFEEQ, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O. MUHAMMAD ALI, CHERECHAN VEETTIL, K.PURAM P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676307. 2 MOHAMMED FASIL, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O. MUHAMMAD ALI, CHERECHAN VEETTIL, K.PURAM P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676307. BY ADVS. P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.) P.M.RAFIQ M.REVIKRISHNAN AJEESH K.SASI MITHA SUDHINDRAN POOJA PANKAJ SRUTHY N. BHAT RAHUL SUNIL
RESPONDENTS: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031. SMT C.SEENA-PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 17.12.2021, THE COURT ON 21.12.2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.
----------------------------------------------------------- B.A.No. 8500 of 2021 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of December, 2021
ORDER
This is an application for anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.1087 of 2021 of Tirur Police Station. The offences alleged are under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C.
3. The allegations are that accused Nos.1 and 2, who
are the petitioners, persuaded the de facto complainant to make a deposit of Rs.6,30,000/- for availing a franchisee of the Q-Net company and the de facto complainant believing the words of the petitioners that they will secure the franchisee, transferred the amount to the account given by the petitioners saying the same to be that of the company.
The franchisee was never provided to the de facto complainant. The petitioners misappropriated the amount and thereby cheated the de facto complainant.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor has placed on record the report of the Sub Inspector of Police, Tirur Police Station.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners would
contend that it was the de facto complainant, who was instrumental in the petitioners' joiningin the Q-Net company and that fact is evident from Annexure-G. The money was paid to the account of the company and the petitioners have no role in providing or arranging for the franchisee of the company. The de facto complainant and the petitioners are relatives and when the franchisee was not given to the de facto complainant by the company on time, he has come forward with the present complaint with a view to pressurize the petitioners to give the money back. Thus the learned counsel would submit that the petitioners are innocent and they are entitled to get anticipatory bail.
7. The learned Public Prosecutor would contend that this is not a solitary instance where the petitioners collected
money giving false assurance of providing franchisee of the Q- Net company. The petitioners collected money from the de facto complainant's sister and brother-in-law. They in the similar way collected money from two other persons, namely, Abdul Latheef T.P. and Safiya regarding which separate complaints against the petitioners are also lodged. It is
therefore contended that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is absolutely necessary and their release on bail will adversely affect the investigation.
8. Q-Net company is doing multilevel marketing
business. Annexure-C is a copy of the brochure of the company. Though its business methodology is presented in an attractive manner, a cursory reading reveals the hidden risk and the possibilities of persons involving in its web, losing their money. Here, the allegation is not against the company, but against the petitioners, who allegedly received money from the de facto complainant in a deceptive way, by making using of the attractive profit generating scheme of Q-Net
company. Admittedly, the petitioners and the de facto
complainant are relatives. From the report of the investigating officer, it is seen that the money was transferred to an account maintained in Karnataka Grameen Bank, Modakkara Branch. But it is not ascertained to whom the money was paid and who had appropriated the money. When there are allegations that money was extracted from many other persons also in a similar way and these petitioners were responsible for such payments, serious investigation into the matter is very much required. Unless sufficient materials are collected, it cannot be said whether or not the petitioners with a deceptive or fraudulent intention caused the de facto complainant and others to part with money and also whether it was the petitioners who had appropriated such money. In this said circumstances, it is too premature to order pre-arrest bail in favour of the petitioners, I am of the view that at this stage the petitioners cannot be directed to release on bail. Therefore, the bail application is liable to be dismissed and the same is dismissed.
9. In the above circumstances, the bail application is
dismissed, with a direction to the petitioners to surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks from today. In the event of their surrendering before the investigating officer, after interrogation and recovery, if any, they shall be produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate within the period stipulated under Section 57 of the Cr.P.C. On production, the learned Magistrate shall consider the bail application, if any, is filed, as expeditiously as possible, preferably on the same day itself.
Sd/- P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE dkr