IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 9TH AUGUST 2011 / 18TH SRAVANA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 6109 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.562/2010 OF CB(CID), CALICUT PETITIONER (S): 3RD ACCUSED ------------------------------- ZAKKEER HUSSAIN,S/O.MUHAMMED, KUNDURUMMAL ILLIKKATH VALAPPIL HOUSE ERAVAKKADU P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-31. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/08/2011, ALONG WITH BA NO.6110 OF 2011 AND OTHERS, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------- B.A.Nos.6109, 6110, 6111 6112, 6113, 6114, 6115, 6116, 6117, 6118, 6119, 6121, 6152 & 6159 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of August, 2011 O R D E R Sl. No. B.A.No. Crime No. Present Crime No.in CB(CID), Calicut Name of Police Station Accused No. 1 6109/2011 260/2010 562/2010 Changaramkulam 3rd 2 6110/2011 267/2010 574/2010 Changaramkulam 3rd 3 6111/2011 248/2010 556/2010 Changaramkulam 3rd 4 6112/2011 247/2010 555/2010 Changaramkulam 3rd 5 6113/2011 251/2010 558/2010 Changaramkulam 3rd 6 6114/2011 266/2010 573/2010 Changaramkulam 3rd 7 6115/2011 249/2010 557/2010 Changaramkulam 3rd 8 6116/2011 252/2010 559/2010 Changaramkulam 3rd 9 6117/2011 257/2010 561/2010 Changaramkulam 3rd 10 6118/2011 256/2010 560/2010 Changaramkulam 3rd 11 6119/2011 293/2010 576/2010 Changaramkulam 3rd 12 6121/2011 208/2010 554/2010 Changaramkulam 3rd 13 6152/2011 274/2010 575/2010 Changaramkulam 5th 14 6159/2011 385/2010 53/2011 Valanchery 1st All the above mentioned 14 Bail Applications are filed by Zakkeer Hussain, who is the third accused in 12 cases and fifth BA Nos.6109/2011 & conn. cases 2 and first accused in two cases, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking anticipatory bail. 2. The offences alleged against the accused in all the cases are under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that the accused persons are partners of a firm in Dubai. They collected various amounts from different persons for the purpose of investing in real estate business. It is alleged that several persons paid money to the accused believing their words that huge profits would be derived since the accused would be investing the money in business and real estate. Later, the investors found themselves duped by the accused as no profit, dividend or even the principal was paid to them. The persons who paid the amount initiated criminal action and several crimes were registered of which 14 crimes relate to these Bail Applications. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that with the BA Nos.6109/2011 & conn. cases 3 money collected by the accused, they purchased properties in various places, not in their names, but in the names of their friends and benamis in order to screen off those properties from the claim of creditors. It is submitted that the total amount involved in all the cases comes to ` 20 crores. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that if the petitioner is granted the discretionary relief under Section 438 Crl.P.C., it would adversely affect the proper investigation, making the whole exercise futile, thereby depriving the legitimate rights of the investors. 5. The offences alleged against the petitioner and the other accused are grave in nature. The allegation is that the accused persons have collected more than ` 20 Crores from different persons. The further allegation is that they misappropriated the amount and purchased properties in the names of benamis or friends or relatives of the accused. 6. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to get the discretionary BA Nos.6109/2011 & conn. cases 4 relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The matter requires investigation. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be required in the case. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, it would adversely affect the proper and smooth investigation of the case. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail applications are dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE csl