Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 2ND PHALGUNA, 1944 CRIME NO.29/2023 OF KANNUR TOWN POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.5: CHANDRAN C K AGED 56 YEARS CHANDRAN C K, S/O KRISHNAN, KASARAGOD - 671 310, PIN - 671310 BY ADVS. SANTHOSH PETER (MAMALAYIL) P.N.ANOOP M.S.SANDEEP SUDHAKARAN AJAY V.ANAND ROHIT LOBO RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM PIN - 682031 2 DEEPAK KALYATTU AGED 48 YEARS MR. DEEPAK KALYATTU, S/O K.K.DIVAKARAN, KAVUMBHAGAM THALASSERY, KANNUR CITY, KERALA. PIN 670101 BY SRI.P.G.MANU, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.02.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDE R
Dated this the 21st day of February, 2023 This is an application for anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by accused No.5 in crime No.29/2023 of Kannur Town police station.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.
3. I have perused the report and relevant documents forming part of the case diary placed by the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. The prosecution case is that accused Nos.1 to 3,
who are the Directors of the financial institution by name ‘Kannur Urban Nidhi Ltd’ and ‘Anytime Money’, along with accused Nos.4, 5 and 6, who are the Associate General
Manager, General Manager and Branch Manager respectively of the above institutions, and the other staff working there, collected an amount of Rs.59.50 lakh belonged to the defacto complainant, deposited in the name of his mother, by fraudulently and dishonestly inducing him to believe that they would provide interest at the rate of 12.5% per annum for the
said amount. Thereafter neither the offered interest or the principal amount not returned. Thereby the accused cheated the defacto complainant. Thus, the accused alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 409 of IPC.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
that the petitioner is innocent. He would submit further that during the period of relevant transaction, he was not the Manager of the firm, as alleged by the prosecution and in this
regard, he has placed reliance on photocopy of an appointment letter alleged to have been issued from ‘Kannur Urban Nidhi Ltd.’ dated 05.05.2022. Pointing out this fact and raising plea of innocence of the petitioner, the learned counsel for the petitioner pressed for grant of pre-arrest bail, with offer to co-operate with the investigation.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor zealously opposed
bail and pointed out the involvement of the petitioner not only in this crime involving Rs.59.50 lakh but also highlighted his involvement in 22 crimes of similar nature as part of Kannur Urban Nidhi Ltd.
7. On perusal of the case records, the complicity of the
petitioner could not be read in isolation from other petitioners and the records would go to show that he had an active role in the matter of getting the amount in deposit by offering
exorbitant interest with intention to cheat and defraud the depositors, prima facie. In so far as the photocopy of the appointment letter is concerned, the genuineness of the same is a matter of serious doubt since the person, who held the post of Manager, has placed the photocopy of the appointment letter showing his appointment after the period of scam as against the prosecution records, which would go to show that he held the post of Manager of the firm prior to the date shown in Annexure 2. Therefore, the same cannot be believed at this stage.
8. In this case, the allegation is that the accused herein
misappropriated Rs.59.50 lakh from the mother of the defacto complainant with an offer to provide 12.50% interest and thereafter misappropriated the entire amount as such. The learned Public Prosecutor pointed out involvement of the petitioner in 22 crimes of similar nature. In such situation, arrest, custodial interrogation and the way in which the money was spent are matters of subtle importance which would require effective investigation. Therefore, this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail.
In the result, this bail application stands dismissed. Sd/- A. BADHARUDEEN JUDGE nkr APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 1160/2023 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure 1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NUMBER Annexure 2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT LETTER ISSUED BY KANNUR URBAN NIDHI LTD DATED Annexure 3 TRUE COPY OF THE RESIGNATION LETTER DATED 08.11.2022 Annexure 4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.01.2023 IN CR.MC.NO.30/2023 OF COURT OF SESSIONS, THALASSERY