Aneesh.A.J vs State Of Kerala

Bechu Kurian Thomas, J.

This is an application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973.

Petitioner is the 1st accused in Crime No.2542 of 2022 of Thrissur East Police Station, alleging offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Petitioner is an Excise Preventive Officer. He is alleged to have lured persons with offers of employment in Russia and collected Rs.2,00,000/-from the defacto complainant on 07.02.2022 and thereafter failed to provide visa or the employment or return the amount and thereby committed the offences alleged.

Sri.T.Asaf Ali, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the prosecution allegations are false and the incident as alleged had not occurred. It was further submitted that petitioner has been falsely implicated as an accused and that he, as an Excise official, has no role at all in the alleged crime. It was contended that petitioner had never received any amount from any person. The learned counsel also pointed that on an earlier occasion in B.A.No.3297 of 2023 and connected cases, this Court had granted bail to the petitioner in similar set of allegation and in those crimes, petitioner was thoroughly interrogated.

Sri.Noushad K.A., the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application and contended that the allegations are serious requiring custodial interrogation. It was further submitted that at the time when the earlier crimes were registered, neither the defacto complainant nor the police were aware about the crimes for which Annexure A2 bail order was obtained by the petitioner. Therefore, merely because the petitioner was in custody on the earlier occasion in other crimes is not a reason to grant bail in this case. Even otherwise it was submitted that considering the nature of the allegations, custodial interrogation is essential.

I have considered the rival contentions. Petitioner is an Excise official, now under suspension. He is alleged to have lured persons, who paid money for obtaining employment in Russia after promising visas. Though the petitioner was arrested in few other crimes earlier and was in custody for sometime, the same is not a reason to avoid custody to the Investigating Officer in a different crime, that too registered before a different police station. Each crime depends upon the circumstances and the allegations in each particular case.

Having regard to the nature of allegations and also considering the circumstances arising in the case, I am of the view that this is not a fit case where the petitioner can be released on anticipatory bail.

However, if the petitioner surrenders before the Investigating Officer on 22.06.2023, he shall be interrogated and if the Investigating Officer proceeds to arrest him, he shall be produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate without delay. Thereafter, if in the event of any application for bail being filed, the same shall be considered by the learned Magistrate, preferably on the same day itself.

With the above observation, this bail application is dismissed.