IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 26TH JUNE 2008 / 5TH ASHADHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 3922 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.897/08 OF CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM PETITIONER/ACCUSED ----------------------------------- SAIFUDEEN, S/O.ALIKANNU, AGED 40, THOPPIL, NJAVELIKONAM, KILIMANOOR VILLAGE, CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI. K.SIJU RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY S.I. OF POLICE, CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION SRI.P.G.THAMPI THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No.3922 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of June, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. Petitioner is the second accused in the crime registered under Sections 420 and 34 of Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, the de facto complainant forwarded a complaint from Dubai to the Inspector General of Police, Ernakulam Range by e- mail on 11.5.2008 alleging cheating by the petitioner and three others. It is alleged in the complaint that the first accused obtained 4,00,000 Dirhams from the de facto complainant with the help of the second accused, who is the petitioner herein under the pretext of opening a hotel at Dubai. But, after receiving the amount, hotel was not started and the de facto complainant was cheated. The matter is now being investigated into by the CBCID, Ernakulam under order of the Director General of Police. 3. Petitioner is the second accused in the crime. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the allegations made. He has only been a driver of the first accused and his name was not stated in the complaint (e-mail BA.3922/08 2 dated 11.5.2008). The petitioner has been deliberately brought into the array of accused without any basis. He has no involvement in the money transaction as alleged. He has no contact with the first accused for years together. The petitioner was in UAE from 5.5.2000 to 29.6.2003 and was running a taxi there, during which time, on several occasions, first accused used to avail car services for his travel, when he came to Dubai. The petitioner is not either a believer or disciple of the first accused. His acquaintance is only limited to the extent as stated. 4. Though the petitioner continued in UAE, no complaint was registered against the petitioner by the de facto complainant before any authority in UAE, it is submitted. No process has been issued from any court of law to the petitioner till date. The petitioner is implicated only because of the recent media reports. The allegations made against the petitioner are highly belated, since the transaction alleged took place in the year 2002 and the complaint is made only on 2008, it is submitted. It is also pointed out that no incriminating evidence is obtained implicating the petitioner in the crime. The petitioner is not having any acquaintance with the de facto complainant and hence she must be implicating the petitioner on a mistaken impression of identity. The police has taken the car of BA.3922/08 3 the petitioner into custody and they are hunting for the accused because of the scandal spread recently. The petitioner, therefore, apprehend arrest and harassment from the side of the police. The petitioner has no information to convey, except plea of innocence in the matter. 5. This petition is strongly opposed by the learned Director General of Prosecution. It was submitted that though the petitioner's name is not mentioned in the e-mail/complaint dated 11.5.2008, specific allegations were made against the petitioner as early as in 2003. It is not correct to say that the complainant did not make any complaint before any of the authorities in UAE. In the year 2003 itself a complaint was lodged before the UAE police and it was communicated to the Interpol, Abudabi which in turn was forwarded to the Interpol, Delhi. The Interpol published the photographs of accused 1 and 2 as “wanted criminals” in connection with the complaint made by the complainant in the year 2003 before the UAE police. 6. It is also submitted that the de facto complainant later came down to Ernakulam and she has given a detailed statement to the police, in which all the specific acts committed by all the accused, including the petitioner are narrated in detail. There are BA.3922/08 4 more than sufficient materials on record to reveal the involvement of the accused in the offence, it is submitted. 7. According to de facto complainant, the petitioner joined the first accused as his driver and there was close relationship between them. The complainant gave 3.5 Lakhs of Dirhams on 15.12.2002 to the first accused in the presence of the petitioner and other persons. The amount was allegedly accepted by the petitioner and the first accused. The amount given was deposited in the account of the petitioner, first accused, one Ismail and another. After some days, the said Ismail informed the de facto complainant about the criminal conspiracy going on between the petitioner and the first accused. It is also revealed that a huge amount was converted to the use of the petitioner and the first accused and not for the starting of the hotel as promised. The money was paid in several transactions. 8. In the third transaction on 7.1.2003, it is alleged that the de facto complainant reached the flat of the first accused and after five minutes, the second accused accompanied by the third accused, a native of Dubai, came to the flat and showed an agreement and a copy of passport to the complainant. But the same was taken away by accused 2 and 3 from the complainant. It is also BA.3922/08 5 pointed out by the learned Director General of Prosecution that the petitioner's presence would be required for the purpose of investigation, since he has to be identified by the driver of the de facto complainant, who will be the best person to identify the petitioner. He will have several informations to convey, as revealed from the materials already collected by the investigating officer, it is submitted. The petitioner is required for custodial interrogation in the nature of the offence committed by the accused. The plea of innocence of the petitioner and false implication are totally baseless and hence flatly denied by respondent, it is submitted. 9. The case diary has been made available to me for perusal. It is true that in the complaint dated 11.5.2008 received by e-mail, the petitioner's name and his involvement are not mentioned. But, much earlier in 2003 itself. The de facto complainant had specifically mentioned and implicated the petitioner in the offence and warrant was also issued from UAE in year 2003. the petitioner is a wanted criminal. But, he was not available for the past five years. The warrant is not so far executed. But, it is not quite clear why the petitioner could not be arrested, even though he was residing in Kerala. It is also seen that first accused was arrested in this case and he was questioned also on 28.5.2008. BA.3922/08 6 10. On going through the case diary and on hearing both sides, I am satisfied that this is a case which must go for investigation. The specific nature of involvement of petitioner has to be found out. His presence and custodial interrogation will be required for the purpose of investigation to get a clear picture. In the above circumstances, it is not proper to grant anticipatory bail in an offence of this nature especially since the petitioner could not be apprehended so far, in spite of all the efforts taken by the respondent police. In the above circumstances, the following order is passed: Petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within seven days from today and make himself available for custodial interrogation. Thereafter he will be proceeded against in accordance with law and he may seek appropriate remedy from the appropriate court. This petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.