Sudheer vs State And Others

G.Chandrasekharan, J

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 30.06.2023 for the offence punishable under Sections 489(B) and 489(C) of IPC in Crime No.332 of 2023 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

On 12.09.2023, this Court has passed the following order,

"Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, petitioner is a driver and he was an employee under Gopi Krishnan. Gopi Krishnan runs travels. The first accused contacted Gopi Krishnan for his travel from KMC Hospital, Chennai to Gudur. Petitioner picked up first accused from KMC Hospital and visited Hotel Gateway near Koyambedu, in which, first accused said to have been staying. There, first accused informed that, his card was blocked and requested the petitioner to help him out by paying money due to the Hotel. Petitioner in turn contacted Gopi Krishnan and informed this fact. Gopi Krishnan transferred Rs.7,500/- to the account of the defacto complainant. Defacto complainant paid the amount to the petitioner. From the said amount, petitioner paid a sum of Rs.2,000/- ( 4 Nos. of Rs. 500/- currency notes) for consumption of alcohol by the first accused in the bar. Later, it came to light that, those five hundred rupees notes are fake notes. Thus, the case came to be registered.

In reply the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the case of the prosecution is totally different. As per the case of the prosecution, first accused, on 29.06.2023 at about 08.30p.m., consumed liquor in the bar and complained about the quality of the food. Defacto complainant made arrangement for changing of food. Then, first accused informed him that, he was working in KMC Hospital and that he has no ATM card and requested money immediately. He also told defacto complainant that his friend will send money to the defacto complainant's account and requested him to take the money and give to him. Due to his insistence, defacto complainant asked him to send the money to his phone number 9176155333. A sum of Rs.7,500/- was sent to his account and he took the money from ATM and gave it to him. Without paying money for the consumption of liquor, he left the hotel showing the petitioner that, petitioner will pay the money. When the defacto complainant asked the petitioner to pay the money, petitioner contacted his owner and then gave Rs.2,000/- ( 4 Nos. of Rs. 500/- currency notes). Defacto complainant suspected the genuineness of the currency notes and found that it contained same serial number as 9FS154125. Therefore, he was kept in the Hotel and was released from the Hotel only after petitioner's owner paid a sum of Rs.1,700/- through Phone pe.

4.From the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that, there is a stark difference with regard to payment of Rs.7,500/- to the defacto complainant. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, fake currency notes were given by the petitioner from a sum of Rs.7,500/- given to him by the defacto complainant. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner produced bank statements to show the transaction of Rs. 7,500 through 9176155333. This account statement establishes the fact that, Gopi Krishnan had alone transferred Rs.7,500/- to the defacto complainant's account. It is submitted that only to help the first accused, this amount was transferred.

In the light of the rival submissions, this Court is of the view that, it is absolutely necessary to find out the views of the prosecution with regard to the banking transaction materials produced by the petitioner.

Post the matter on 19.09.2023 for filing counter on the transaction details produced by the petitioner."

When the matter is taken up, in continuation of the hearing held on 12.09.2023 and the orders passed there on, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the investigation on the lines indicated in the order dated 12.09.2023 could not be completed. He submitted that respondent police has no objection for granting interim bail to the petitioner for a limited period.

In the said circumstances, this Court grants interim bail to the petitioner for a period of two (2) weeks from today and the petitioner is ordered to be released on interim bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Special Court for fake currency, Chennai 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 Inspector of Police, CBCID Forgery Wing, Chennai daily at 10.30 a.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 absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.

Post the matter on 03.10.2023.