IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 26TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 4TH ASWINA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 5367 of 2011() ----------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.14554/2011 Dated 09/06/2011 CRIME NO.693/2011 OF KANNUR TOWN POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: ------------------------ 1. SANDHYA.P., W/O.HARI SREESHAN, AGED 35 YEARS, UPPOT HOUSE, TEMPLE STOP, CHALAD P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. HARI SREESHAN, S/O.SREESHAN, AGED 38 YEARS, UPPOT HOUSE, TEMPLE STOP, CHALAD P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.SHYAM RESPONDENT: STATE: --------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (CRIME NO.693/2011 OF KANNUR TOWN POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT.) PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/09/2011, ALONG WITH BA NO. 5368 OF 2011 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------------- Bail Appln.Nos.5367 & 5368 of 2011 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of September, 2011 ORDER Bail Application No.5367 of 2011 arises out of Crime No.693 of 2011 while Bail Application No.5368 of 2011 arises out of Crime No.694 of 2011 of Kannur Town Police Station. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in the crimes. In both the cases, the offences alleged against the petitioners are under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act. The allegation levelled against the petitioners are the following:- 2. They represented to the de facto complainant and others in the case that they are the agents of UNIPAY 2 U, a Malaysian based company and that if the money is invested in the company, the investors would get more than double the amount within a period of ten months. Believing the promise made by the petitioners, large amounts were invested by the de facto complainant. Though they received some amounts, further amounts are due from the petitioners. It is stated that Bail Appln.Nos.5367 & 5368/2011 : 2 : a sum of Rs.1,58,500/- was collected in one case and Rs.3,16,000/- was collected in the other case. According to the prosecution, the accused persons conducted a Money Circulation Scheme within the meanings of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act. 3. The matter requires thorough investigation. The allegations levelled against the petitioners are serious in nature. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that the petitioners are entitled to get the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Custodial interrogation of the petitioners may be required in the case. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioners, 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 skj