Leon vs State of Kerala - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1331062
CourtKerala High Court
Decided OnJan-24-2023
Case NumberBail Appl./264/2023
JudgeHonourable Mr.Justice Ziyad Rahman a.a.
AppellantLEON
RespondentState of Kerala
Excerpt:
in the high court of kerala at ernakulampresent the honourable mr.justice ziyad rahman a.a. tuesday, the 24th day of january 2023 / 4th magha, 1944 bail appl. no. 264 of 2023 [in crmc 2358/2022 on the file of the additional sessions court(adhoc)-ii, kollam] [crime no.1125/2022] petitioner/s: leon aged 57 years s/o ben, residing at andrea villa, chavara south p.o., kollam , pin - 691584 by advs. bhanu thilak s.r.prasanth vishnu.r hari shankar prasad sarun k. idicula respondent/s:1 state of kerala represented by public prosecutor, high court of kerala, ernakulam, pin - 682031 2 station house officer eravipuram police station, kollam, pin - 691011 3 prajitha aged 37 years d/o. kamayans, thanniyil mayyanad p.o, kollam, pin - 691303 other present: adv c s hrithwik-sr pp this bail application having come up for admission on 24.01.2023, the court on the same day delivered the following: :2 :orderdated this the 24th day of january, 2023 the petitioner is the 1st accused in crime no.1125/2022 of eravipuram police station, which was registered for the offence punishable under section 420, read with section 34 of the indian penal code.2. the prosecution case is that the petitioner, alongwith accused nos.2 and 3, persuaded the defacto complainant to deposit a huge amount in their business by promising that by investing in the business of gold and pepper which they are conducting, they could provide him high profit. believing the words of the accused persons, the defacto complainant, on various occasions, deposited several amounts totaling to rs 11,80,000/-. however, later, the petitioners did not provide the returns as offered, and the amount refunded was only rs 3,58,000/-. the balance amount of rs 8,22,000/- was never repaid. a complaint was submitted in such circumstances, and the crime was registered based on the same.3. the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner:3 : contends that the petitioner was falsely implicated in the said case. according to him, it was a business transaction intended for investment, and the same would not attract any culpability. it is pointed out that, the defacto complainant paid the aforesaid amounts as investment in the companies named “universal trading solutions” and “dream makers global” situated at coimbatore in which the petitioner himself was an investor. therefore, it was contended that there was no intention to cheat the defacto complainant, and the transaction would attract only civil liabilities.4. on the other hand, the learned public prosecutor would oppose the said contentions.5. it is pointed out that the petitioner is implicated asaccused in two other cases also, which contain similar allegations. in response to the same, the learned counsel for the petitioner points out that, in one case, the petitioner isalready granted anticipatory bail by this court as per orderdated 18.01.2023 in bail application no. 120/2023. the aforesaid bail application was passed in crime no.1124/2022 of eravipuram police station. with regard to the other crime, it is :4 : pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the same is already referred by the police after conducting the investigation.6. after considering all the relevant aspects, i am of theview that, the contention that the payment effected by the defacto complainant were investments in the companies referred to above, cannot be simply brushed aside. in the investigation, if it is revealed that it was an investment in the business, attributing any culpability upon the petitioner may not be proper. however, all those aspects are matters of investigation, and the truth has to be determined from such an investigation.7. thus, considering all the aspects, i am of the viewthat the interest of justice would be served, if the cooperation of the petitioner is ensured for investigation and for such purpose, the petitioner is to be directed to surrender before the investigation officer. in such circumstances, this application is disposed of, directing the petitioner to surrender before the investigation officer within a period of two weeks, subject to the following conditions.in the result, this application is disposed of :5 : with the following directions:-1. the petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer, within a period of two weeks from today, for subjecting himself for interrogation.2. after interrogation, the petitioner shall be released onbail on the very same day of surrender upon the petitioner executing a bond for rs. 1,00,000/- (rupees one lakh only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the investigating officer.3. the petitioner shall fully cooperate with the investigation, including subjecting himself to the deemed police custody for the purpose of recovery, if any, as and when demanded.4. the petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer between 10.00 a.m and 11.00 a.m every wednesday until the filing of the final report.5. the petitioner shall also appear before the investigating officer as and when required by him.6. the petitioner shall not commit any offence of like nature while on bail.7. the petitioner shall not make any attempt to contactany of the prosecution witnesses, directly or through any other person, or in any other way try to tamper with the evidence or influence any witnesses or other persons related to the investigation.8. the petitioner shall not leave the state of keralawithout the permission of the jurisdictional court. :6 : in case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation of bail, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law. sd/- ziyad rahman a.a. judge ncd :7 : appendix of bail appl. 264/2023 petitioner annexures annexure.a1 true copy of the id card issued showing the disability of the son of the petitioner annexure.a2 . true copy of the id card issued showing the disability of the wife of the petitioner annexure. a3 true copy of the judgement dated 05-08- 2022 in wp(c) no.23732 of 2022 annexure. a4 true copy of the cmp no. 2433/2022dated 19-08-2022 filed by the 3rd respondent before the judicial first class magistrate court-ii, kollam annexure.a5 true copy of the fir dated 02-09-2022 having fir no. 1125/2022 of eravipuram police station annexure. a6 true copy of the certified copy oforder dated 22-12-2022, in crl.m.c.no.judge-ii, kollam annexure. a7 true copy of the case summary of the petitioner :8 :
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 BAIL APPL. NO. 264 OF 2023 [IN CRMC 2358/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT(ADHOC)-II, KOLLAM] [CRIME NO.1125/2022] PETITIONER/S: LEON AGED 57 YEARS S/O BEN, RESIDING AT ANDREA VILLA, CHAVARA SOUTH P.O., KOLLAM , PIN - 691584 BY ADVS. BHANU THILAK S.R.PRASANTH VISHNU.R HARI SHANKAR PRASAD SARUN K. IDICULA RESPONDENT/S:

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER ERAVIPURAM POLICE STATION, KOLLAM, PIN - 691011 3 PRAJITHA AGED 37 YEARS D/O. KAMAYANS, THANNIYIL MAYYANAD P.O, KOLLAM, PIN - 691303 OTHER PRESENT: ADV C S HRITHWIK-SR PP THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: :2 :

ORDER

Dated this the 24th day of January, 2023 The petitioner is the 1st accused in crime No.1125/2022 of Eravipuram Police Station, which was registered for the offence punishable under Section 420, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner, along

with accused Nos.2 and 3, persuaded the defacto complainant to deposit a huge amount in their business by promising that by investing in the business of gold and pepper which they are conducting, they could provide him high profit. Believing the words of the accused persons, the defacto complainant, on various occasions, deposited several amounts totaling to Rs 11,80,000/-. However, later, the petitioners did not provide the returns as offered, and the amount refunded was only Rs 3,58,000/-. The balance amount of Rs 8,22,000/- was never repaid. A complaint was submitted in such circumstances, and the crime was registered based on the same.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

:3 : contends that the petitioner was falsely implicated in the said case. According to him, it was a business transaction intended for investment, and the same would not attract any culpability. It is pointed out that, the defacto complainant paid the aforesaid amounts as investment in the Companies named “Universal Trading Solutions” and “Dream Makers Global” situated at Coimbatore in which the petitioner himself was an investor. Therefore, it was contended that there was no intention to cheat the defacto complainant, and the transaction would attract only civil liabilities.

4. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor would oppose the said contentions.

5. It is pointed out that the petitioner is implicated as

accused in two other cases also, which contain similar allegations. In response to the same, the learned counsel for the petitioner points out that, in one case, the petitioner is

already granted anticipatory bail by this Court as per order

dated 18.01.2023 in Bail Application No. 120/2023. The aforesaid bail application was passed in crime No.1124/2022 of Eravipuram Police Station. With regard to the other crime, it is :4 : pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the same is already referred by the Police after conducting the investigation.

6. After considering all the relevant aspects, I am of the

view that, the contention that the payment effected by the defacto complainant were investments in the Companies referred to above, cannot be simply brushed aside. In the investigation, if it is revealed that it was an investment in the business, attributing any culpability upon the petitioner may not be proper. However, all those aspects are matters of investigation, and the truth has to be determined from such an investigation.

7. Thus, considering all the aspects, I am of the view

that the interest of justice would be served, if the cooperation of the petitioner is ensured for investigation and for such purpose, the petitioner is to be directed to surrender before the Investigation Officer. In such circumstances, this application is disposed of, directing the petitioner to surrender before the Investigation Officer within a period of two weeks, subject to the following conditions.In the result, this application is disposed of :5 : with the following directions:-

1. The petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating officer, within a period of two weeks from today, for subjecting himself for interrogation.

2. After interrogation, the petitioner shall be released on

bail on the very same day of surrender upon the petitioner executing a bond for Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the investigating officer.

3. The petitioner shall fully cooperate with the investigation, including subjecting himself to the deemed police custody for the purpose of recovery, if any, as and when demanded.

4. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer between 10.00 a.m and 11.00 a.m every Wednesday until the filing of the final report.

5. The petitioner shall also appear before the investigating officer as and when required by him.

6. The petitioner shall not commit any offence of like nature while on bail.

7. The petitioner shall not make any attempt to contact

any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or through any other person, or in any other way try to tamper with the evidence or influence any witnesses or other persons related to the investigation.

8. The petitioner shall not leave the State of Kerala

without the permission of the jurisdictional court. :6 : In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation of bail, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law. Sd/- ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE ncd :7 : APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 264/2023 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure.A1 TRUE COPY OF THE ID CARD ISSUED SHOWING THE DISABILITY OF THE SON OF THE PETITIONER Annexure.A2 . TRUE COPY OF THE ID CARD ISSUED SHOWING THE DISABILITY OF THE WIFE OF THE PETITIONER Annexure. A3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 05-08- 2022 IN WP(C) NO.23732 OF 2022 Annexure. A4 TRUE COPY OF THE CMP NO. 2433/2022

DATED 19-08-2022 FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, KOLLAM Annexure.A5 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR DATED 02-09-2022 HAVING FIR NO. 1125/2022 OF ERAVIPURAM POLICE STATION Annexure. A6 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFIED COPY OF

ORDER DATED 22-12-2022, IN CRL.M.C.NO.

JUDGE-II, KOLLAM Annexure. A7 TRUE COPY OF THE CASE SUMMARY OF THE PETITIONER :8 :