IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6751 of 2008() ------------------------------------------ (CBCID CRIME NO.169/CR/TVM/08,MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION CRIME 480/08) PETITIONER/12TH ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------- VINOD,S/O.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, SREEGANESH HOUSE, NO.24 C, SREEBHADRA NAGAR,CHOOZHAMPALA, KUDAPPANAKKUNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.D.KISHORE RESPONDENT(S): STATE & COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.K.SURESH THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/11/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K.HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.6751 of 2008 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th November, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for bail. 2. According to prosecution, petitioner along with the first and other accused hatched a conspiracy to deceive depositors and by their fraudulent representations, with intention to deceive depositors to make deposits in the establishment run by the first accused, promising to pay high interest induced them to huge amount and thereafter, neither the money was paid back nor the interest was paid to them. The amounts were misappropriated by the accused in furtherance of common intention and in pursuance to conspiracy. Petitioner has also received huge amounts as commission. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner was arrested on 30.9.2008 and he is in custody for a long time. Further detention of petitioner is not required and the present allegations made against him are baseless and not supported by any materials, it is submitted. The details in the BA No.6751/2008 2 First Information Statement do not disclose any allegation against petitioner, but, allegations therein are made against one Bindu Mahesh and the first accused. But, no whisper is made against the petitioner, it is submitted. 4. The petitioner is only a paid employee under the first accused drawing a salary of Rs.9,000/- and depositors voluntarily made deposits in the establishment, but, it cannot be said that the petitioner was cheating them, it is submitted. The elements of cheating and the ingredients of offence are missing in the allegations made. The allegations will not constitute offence of cheating, it is submitted. Learned counsel for petitioner also submitted that if petitioner is required for police custody in connection with any other crime, that may not be made a ground to refuse bail in this crime. Both are to be independently investigated into, but, there is no justification in detaining the petitioner in custody in connection with this crime without any sufficient materials on record, it is submitted. 5. This petition is opposed. Learned public prosecutor submitted that a crime was registered against the first accused and another on the basis of the complaint made by the defacto BA No.6751/2008 3 complainant and a crime was registered under Sections 420 and 34 IPC. In the course of investigation, it was revealed that several other offences are also committed and offences under Sections 120B, 409 and 406 IPC were added. The investigation reveals the involvement of petitioner also, in the crime. He is not a mere employee, but, he had actively participated in the commission of offence, in pursuance of a conspiracy hatched with other accused. Though the crime was registered on the basis of the complaint made by defacto complainant, in the course of investigation, several persons have come forward giving statements against the petitioner implicating him with the crime and revealing his role in the crime, it is submitted. 6. It is also pointed out that on the basis of the statement given by one Silvester, crime no.577/08 is registered against the petitioner as A4. In the said crime, police is taking steps to get petitioner interrogated in police custody. Therefore, at this stage, if petitioner is released on bail, it will adversely affect the investigation, it is submitted. It is true that allegations in the FI statement do not reflect any incriminating evidence against petitioner as such, but, several persons such as Vinod Kumar, BA No.6751/2008 4 Bharath, Arun, Sunitha, Sheela etc. have come forward making specific allegations against petitioner which constitute offences. The case diary contains several materials which disclose commission of offence of cheating. 7. The entire crime is under investigation and at this stage, petitioner may not be released on bail, it is submitted. Several witnesses were questioned in this case and all those persons have implicated petitioner and an investigation is conducted into the allegations made. If petitioner is granted bail in this crime, at this stage, it will adversely affect the investigation, since those persons are likely to be influenced or intimidated. He may also try to tamper with evidence and hence, bail may not be granted, it is submitted. 8. On hearing both sides, it appears that though the crime is registered on the basis of a statement given by defacto complainant against the first and the second accused in the crime, in the course of investigation several persons have implicated petitioner also and the crime is being investigated into. The petitioner was subsequently arrayed as accused no.7 in the crime and at this stage of investigation, it may not be proper BA No.6751/2008 5 to grant bail to the petitioner, since it is likely that the depositors who have given incriminating statements against petitioner are likely to be influenced or intimidated. It is also possible that evidence should be tampered with. Hence, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE csl