IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 19TH MAGHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 677 of 2008() ---------------------------- CRLMP.105/2008 of DISTRICT COURT, KOTTAYAM CRIME 25/08 OF CHANGANACHERRY POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.5 TO 9 ----------------------------------------------- 1. K.S.RAJU, SWATHI HOUSE, VAZHAPPALLY P.O CHANGANACHERRY. 2. TARO JOSEPH, KIZHEKKEMURI HOUSE, KOOTHRAPPALLY P.O., KARUKACHAL. 3. ANIL KUMAR P.BABY, PUTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, MAMMOODU P.O., CHANGANACHERRY. 4. SAMBASIVAN C.K., LAL BHAVAN, VEROOR P.O., CHANGANACHERRY. 5. M.T.THOMAS, MUNDUVELIKUNNEL HOUSE(OASIS) THRIKODITHANAM P.O., CHANGANACHERRY. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHANGANACHERRY, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADV.SRI.JAI GEORGE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/02/2008, ALONG WITH BA NO. 770 OF 2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` B.A. Nos. 677 B and 770 OF 2008 ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 8th day of February, 2008 O R D E R These applications for anticipatory bail are filed by accused Nos.2 and 5 to 9 in a crime registered for offences punishable, inter alia, under section 420 IPC. The crux of the allegations against the petitioners is that they, along with the co-accused, in furtherance of their common intention, had induced the public to part with amounts with the full knowledge that such amounts shall never be returned and with the intention of fraudulently deceiving them to part with money. That is the allegation raised by the prosecution now. Members of the public were promised by the petitioners and the co-accused that if they would deposit amounts with the accused it will be trebled and returned to them after a short period of time. The investigators allege that this was nothing but a naked attempt to fraudulently induce persons to BA.677 & 770/08 : 2 : part with money. The victims complained and accordingly crime was registered. Accused Nos.1 to 4 who are the partners of the business and accused Nos.5 to 9 who are the employees did allegedly share the culpable intention. 2. The learned counsel for the 2nd accused submits that he had no role in the business. He is only a sleeping partner. He is afflicted with ailments. He may be granted anticipatory bail, it is prayed. 3. The learned counsel for accused Nos.5 to 9 submits that even as per the allegations, they are only the employees. They are really not employees also. They are also investors who made investments bona fide in the establishment of accused Nos.1 to 4. In any view of the matter, the petitioners do not deserve the trauma of arrest and detention. They may be granted anticipatory bail, it is prayed. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the applications. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that all BA.677 & 770/08 : 3 : available indications show that accused No.2 also was actively involved in the scheme and accused Nos.5 to 9 had worked as agents to induce members of the public to part with money in furtherance of the common intention they shared along with accused Nos.1 to 4. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that at any rate, there is no circumstances in this case which can persuade this Court to invoke the discretion under section 438 Cr.P.C. 5. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. I am satisfied that there are no features in this case which would justify the invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. This, I agree with the learned Public Prosecutor, is a fit case where the petitioners must appear before the investigating officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the normal and ordinary course. 6. In the result, these petitions are dismissed. BA.677 & 770/08 : 4 : Needless to say, if the petitioners surrender before the investigating officer or the learned Magistrate and apply for bail, after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate must proceed to pass appropriate orders on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) aks