Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. TUESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 4TH MAGHA, 1944 [CRIME NO.471/2022 OF VELLARADA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM] PETITIONER/S:
1 ABHILASH B. AGED 33 YEARS S/O BALAKRISHNAN, SANTHA BHAVAN, KEEZHATTOOR VILLAGE, KEEZHATTOOR P.O., PERUMKADAVILA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695124 2 AJAYAN AGED 29 YEARS S/O ARJUNAN, MEKKUMKARA PUTHENVEEDU, VELLARADA P.O., VELLARADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695505 3 SREEKUTTAN M ( SOUGHT TO BE IMPLEADED ) SRINILAYAM, KULAMATTAM P.O, ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695101 ( SOUGHT TO BE IMPLEADED ) BY ADVS. ANAND KALYANAKRISHNAN Latheesh Sebastian C.DHEERAJ RAJAN
RESPONDENT/S: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2 ADDL.R2 RESHMA,AGED 32 YEARS D/O SUSHEELA, PALLINADA VEEDU, VETTUKUTTY, ARATTUKUZHY, VELLARADA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R2 AS PER ORDER DATED 13/07/2022 IN CRL.M.A.NO.1/2022. R2 BY K.R.VINOD M.S.LETHA(K/139/1996) K.S.SREEREKHA(K/000152/2016) NABIL KHADER(K/000169/2018) OTHER PRESENT: R1 BY ADV C S HRITHWIK- PP THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This is an application for pre-arrest bail. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No. 471 of 2022 of Vellarada Police Station, which was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. The prosecution case is that the accused, with the intention
to cheat the defacto complainant, created a fake society, namely TVPM District Bio Technology Co-operative Society Ltd, offered employment to the defacto complainant and various other persons, and collected deposits of various amounts. From the defacto complainant, an amount of Rs. 10 lakhs were collected with the above promise. Even though a job was provided to the defacto complainant, they did not pay the salary properly, and later, society was wound up. It is alleged that the society was fake, and the amounts were collected from several persons with the intention of cheating the aforesaid persons. Annexure A1 is the FIR.
3. Today, when the matter came up for consideration, the
learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that since they do not have any instructions from the 1 st petitioner/1st accused, he is not pressing the petition on his behalf. He confines his contentions on behalf of the 2nd petitioner alone.
4. The specific contention put forward by the learned counsel
for the petitioner is that, as far as the 2 nd petitioner is concerned, he was only an employee, and he never had any actual role in the conduct of the business. It is pointed out that even going by the allegations in the FIR and the statements of the other persons, all the transactions took place between the 1 st accused and the said defacto complainant as well as the other persons who have invested. Therefore, it is contended that, the 2 nd petitioner is also a person who stands on the same footing as that of the defacto complainant.
5. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor, as well as
the learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant, would oppose the application. Yet another victim submitted Crl. M.A. No. opposed the prayer sought by the petitioner.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor upon instructions, submitted
that accused persons had collected amounts from altogether nine persons by making the promise of employment in the society. It is pointed out that the society does not have any registration, and it was a fake society. It is further pointed out that the victim has clearly stated that the 2nd petitioner acted as a middleman for collecting the deposit. The aforesaid submission of the learned Public Prosecutor is supported by the learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant and another victim seeking impleadment in this case. On the strength of the documents produced in Crl.M.A. 1/2023, it was contended that there are specific allegations raised against the 2 nd petitioner also, and it is their case that he collected an amount of Rs. 1 lakh as commission through his account.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 2nd
petitioner denies the allegations that he received any amounts from any of the persons concerned. He asserts that the 2nd petitioner is only an employee who never had any actual role in the management of the alleged society.
8. On perusal of the records, it is seen that, in the statement
of the victim, there is a specific reference to the role of the 2nd petitioner. Even though the 2nd petitioner denies having received any amount from any of the parties concerned, there are statements to the effect that an amount of Rs. 1 lakh was collected from the defacto complainant as commission through his account. From the materials placed on record, it is prima facie evident that the society was functioning without any registration and activities were deceptive. Even though the learned counsel for the 2 nd petitioner denies the receipt of any amount, I am of the view that the same is a matter of investigation. Even though the crime was registered as early as on 07.06.2022, the investigation has not been completed so far. Therefore, it is to be ensured that the 2 nd petitioner is cooperating with the investigation. Thus after considering all the relevant inputs, even though I am not inclined to grant a pre-arrest bail, the petitioner is directed to surrender before the Investigation Officer. In the result, this application is disposed of with the following directions:- 1 The bail application is dismissed as far as the 1 st petitioner is concerned. 2 The 2nd petitioner is directed to surrender before the Investigation officer within a period of ten days from today for subjecting himself to interrogation; 3 Upon such surrender and after interrogation, if any, the 2 nd petitioner shall be produced by the investigation officer before the Jurisdictional Magistrate on the very same day of surrender itself to enable the petitioner to seek bail; 4 The Jurisdictional Magistrate, upon production of the accused and filing of an application for bail, may consider the bail application in accordance with the law and, if possible, dispose of the same on the very same day of filing of the said application. The Bail Application is disposed of with the above directions. Sd/- ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.,JUDGE pkk APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 4494/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT Annexure 2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CATEGORICAL STATEMENT
APPENDED TO THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF INDUSTRIAL CO. OPERATIVE SOCIETIES DATED 01.02.2013 PERTAINING TO TVPM DISTRICT CO. OPERATIVE SOCIETY Annexure 3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE SHOWING AMALGAMATION OF BIOTECHNOLOGY CO. OPERATIVE SOCIETY WITH TRAVANCORE SOCIAL WELFARE CO. OPERATIVE SOCIETY
RESPONDENT ANNEXURES Annexure R3(a) TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER IN THE BAIL APPLICATION TO ME DATED NIL Annexure R3(b) TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER IN THE BAIL APPLICATION TO THE BROTHER-IN-LAW OF THE PETITIONER DATED NIL Annexure R3(c) TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS SHOWING THE
DEPOSIT OF RS.8 LAKHS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE 1ST PETITIONER IN THE BAIL APPLICATION ON 03.02.2021 BY THE FATHER-IN- LAW OF THE IMPLEADING PETITIONER Annexure R3(d) TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT SHOWING THE BANK TRANSFER OF RS.2 LAKHS ON 04.02.2021 Annexure R3(e) TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER IN THE BAIL APPLICATION DATED NIL