Sivakumar vs State

A.D.Jagadish Chandira, J

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 14.03.2023, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 468, 471, 420, 109, 120(B), 511 r/w 34 of IPC, registered in Crime No.38 of 2023 and Sections 468, 471, 420, 109, 120(B) r/w 34 of IPC, registered in Crime Nos. 39, 41 & 42 of 2023, pending on the file of the respondent Police, seeks bail.

2.1 The case of the prosecution in Crl.O.P.No.9665 of 2023 as per the de-facto complainant, Kailash, is that the accused had attempted to cheat him by pledging the spurious jewel with forged jeweller's mark, in his jewellery named GAK jewellery. Based on his complaint, a case in Crime No.38 of 2023 came to be registered by the respondent police on 11.03.2023. Hence the case.

2.2 The case of the prosecution in Crl.O.P.No.9674 of 2023 as per the de-facto complainant, Arun, is that the accused, by pledging the spurious jewels with forged jeweller's mark weighing 119.30 grams and 116.30 grams with the de-facto complainant's bank named Puduvai Bharathiyar Bank, Karaikal, had obtained a sum of Rs.7,82,000/- and thereby, cheated the bank. Based on his complaint, a case in Crime No.39 of 2023 came to be registered by the respondent police on 11.03.2023. Hence the case.

2.3 The case of the prosecution in Crl.O.P.No.9679 of 2023 as per the de-facto complainant, Govindaramanujam, is that the accused, by pledging the spurious jewel with forged jeweller's mark, weighing about 90 grams in the de-facto complainant's finance company named Kumbakonam Mutual Benefit, Fund Nithi Limited, Karaikal, had obtained a sum of Rs.2,95,300/- and thereby, cheated the finance company. Based on his complaint, a case in Crime No.41 of 2023 came to be registered by the respondent police on 13.03.2023. Hence the case.

2.4 The case of the prosecution in Crl.O.P.No.9671 of 2023 as per the de-facto complainant, Suganya, is that the accused, by pledging the spurious jewel with forged jeweller's mark weighing 76.9 grams in the de-facto complainant's finance company named India Infoline Finance Limited, Karaikal, had obtained a sum of Rs.3,13,024/- and thereby, cheated the finance company. Based on her complaint, a case in Crime No.42 of 2023 came to be registered by the respondent police on 13.03.2023. Hence the case.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person, who is a gold smith and he has been falsely implicated as A6 in this case. He further submitted that only based on the instruction given by the main accused (A2), the petitioner has made the jewels and other than that he does now anything about the intention of the main accused and only, later, the petitioner came to know that the A2 along with other accused had pledged the spurious jewels and had obtained money from the finance company. He also submitted that the petitioner is no way connected with the alleged offence, whereas, he has been implicated in this case only based on the confession statement recorded from the other accused. He also submitted that co-accused in this case has been granted bail by this Court in Crl.O.P.Nos.8252, 8258, 8271, 8212, 8495, 8496, 8498 & 8499 of 2023 vide orders dated 24.04.2023. He further submitted that the petitioner is in custody from 14.03.2023 and he is ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence he prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

Learned Government Advocate (Puducherry) appearing for the respondent police submitted that it is the case where, the accused have formed as a syndicate and the petitioner (A6), who is a goldsmiths, along with other accused, had made spurious jewels and by pledging them with bank and other finance companies, have obtained several lakhs and cheated them. He also submitted that the investigation is still pending. He further submitted that there are enough materials to show that the petitioner has colluded with other accused and cheated the de-facto complainants and also, the petitioner is well aware of the plan of the main accused and had made spurious jewels. Hence, he vehemently opposed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Puducherry) for the respondent and perused the entire materials available on record.

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and taking note of the fact that the co-accused have been granted bail by this Court and also considering the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner with certain condition.

Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a separate bond in each crime number for a sum of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousand only) with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Karaikal, and on further conditions that:

[a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent Police, everyday at 10.30a.m. and 6.30p.m., until further orders;

[c] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

[d] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

[e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560];

[f] If the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.