Saharsh B vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Sep 30, 2021

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1674959

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1674959
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mrs. Justice Shircy V.
Decided On: Sep 30, 2021
Case Number: Bail Appl./7144/2021

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Saharsh B

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....out retail business through out india by starting supermarkets, hypermarkets etc under the trade name 'ente kada. forthe same, they have collected money from various persons who are interested for running or starting retail business. the defacto complainant had invested an amount of rs.7,00,000/-. but as per the agreement entered between the company and the defacto complainant a shop room has to be provided for running the business and such other conditions are also there. though the amount was invested by the defacto complainant, believing the same like others, they have not started the business or made any arrangements and thus cheated the defacto complainant and others. thus the crime has been registered on the complaint of the defacto complainant.3. heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well the learned public prosecutor.4. the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that he is totally innocent of the allegations levelled against him. he has not received any money from the defacto complainant as alleged by the prosecution.5. the learned public prosecutor has refuted the argument of the learned public prosecutor contendingthat this petitioner was also a director of the company at the time of the agreement with the defacto complainant. after receipt of the money the term and conditions of the agreement have not been complied with and so the defacto complainant could not start the supermarket as promised by the said company. so there is a strong case against the petitioner. 31 cases have been registered against this company forhaving colleced money on complaints of various persons who invested money in the company and pre- arrest bail have been granted by this court in some of the cases.6. as the learned public prosecutor has submitted that bail has been granted to some of thedirectors of m/s cissil retail management private limited, though there is a strong prima facie case against this petitioner also, i think that he can also be.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V. THURSDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 8TH ASWINA, 1943 CRIME NO.170/CBCU/TVM/2021 OF CRIME BRACH CENTRAL UNIT-4, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED :- SAHARSH B AGED 22 YEARS S/O.BHASKARAN, ZIGMA, SIVA RAM GARDENS, KODUNGANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695013. BY ADVS. SADCHITH.P.KURUP C.P.ANIL RAJ JOSE ANTONY RESPONDENT/STATE :- 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031. 2 THE DEPUTY POLICE SUPERINTENDENT, CRIME BRANCH CENTRAL UNIT-4, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695008. SMT.SREEJA.V- SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No.170/CBCU/TVM/2021 of Crime Branch Central Unit-4, Thiruvananthapuram registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner has moved this application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. The prosecution allegation is that this petitioner is the one of the Director of M/s.Cissil Retail Management Private Limited. The company was formed with the intention to carry out retail business through out India by starting supermarkets, hypermarkets etc under the trade name 'Ente Kada. For

the same, they have collected money from various persons who are interested for running or starting retail business. The defacto complainant had invested an amount of Rs.7,00,000/-. But as per the agreement entered between the company and the defacto complainant a shop room has to be provided for running the business and such other conditions are also there. Though the amount was invested by the defacto complainant, believing the same like others, they have not started the business or made any arrangements and thus cheated the defacto complainant and others. Thus the crime has been registered on the complaint of the defacto complainant.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that he is totally innocent of the allegations levelled against him. He has not received any money from the defacto complainant as alleged by the prosecution.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor has refuted the argument of the learned Public Prosecutor contending

that this petitioner was also a Director of the Company at the time of the agreement with the defacto complainant. After receipt of the money the term and conditions of the agreement have not been complied with and so the defacto complainant could not start the supermarket as promised by the said company. So there is a strong case against the petitioner. 31 cases have been registered against this company for

having colleced money on complaints of various persons who invested money in the company and pre- arrest bail have been granted by this court in some of the cases.

6. AS the learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that bail has been granted to some of the

Directors of M/s Cissil Retail Management Private Limited, though there is a strong prima facie case against this petitioner also, I think that he can also be granted pre-arrest bail. Therefore, considering the entire facts and circumstances involved in this case, this application is disposed of directing him to surrender before the investigating officer on 08.10.2021 between 10.00 am and 11.00 am. Upon his surrender, after recording his arrest and interrogation, he shall be released on bail subject to the following conditions :-

(i) The petitioner shall be released on bail

on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the investigating officer

(ii) He shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required by him, in writing. (iii)He shall co-operate with the investigation and trial of the case.

(iv) He shall not directly or indirectly,

make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

(v) He shall not commit any offence while on bail. In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the learned Magistrate/Judge is empowered to cancel the bail in accordance with the law. Sd/- SHIRCY V. JUDGE SMA

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2021 Same Parties Saharsh B vs State of Kerala Same Judge Honourable Mrs. Justice Shircy V.