IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 27TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 6TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7122 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO. 480/2008 OF MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PETITIONER (S): ACCUSED NO.17 --------------------------------- AVEESH SIVAPRASAD, T.C 11/1780(1), KALYANI BHAVAN, CRA J3, KASTHURI LANE, KOWDIAR.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.NIREESH MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE DY.S.P, CRIME BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.K. SURESH THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A. No. 7122 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 27th day of November,2008 O R D E R Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 420 read with section 34 IPC. According to prosecution, a crime was registered on the basis of a complaint filed by de facto complainant against accused 1 and 2. Thereafter, on investigation, it was found that several other persons are also involved in the crime and hence, they were also arrayed as accused. The 1st accused was running some financial institutions like NEST INest Total 4 you etc. in some parts of Thiruvananthapuram city with others and they have induced certain persons by fraudulent representation and deceived them by offering very high rate of interest and other monetary benefit and thereby making them to deposit huge amount of money in the institutions. Later, neither the money nor interest was paid to depositors. Petitioner is the 17th accuse who is the legal adviser of 1st accused and he also personally committed the offences and procured huge amount as deposits. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is a practicing lawyer in Thiruvananthapuram. He has BA 7122/08 -2- not committed any offence. As a legal adviser, he has association with 1st accused, but he has not cheated any person nor misappropriated any amount. In fact, his brother has deposited some amount in the institution and when the institution was closed, the money was not returned and actually he is the victim. It is also submitted that he received some amount for services rendered by him as a professional, but it cannot constitute any offence. Now it is understood that petitioner is made an accused without any basis and hence, he may be granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the role of petitioner is not merely an advocate or a legal adviser. Petitioner actively participated in all the illegal activities committed by 1st accused jointly with others in connection with the running of the institution. He had personally and jointly with 1st accused and 2nd accused deceived various persons and induced them to make deposits and he deceived them by making misrepresentations that the institution had approval from the Reserve Bank of India and that petitioner knows this fact as a legal adviser. Safety of deposit was also assured by petitioner himself to depositors, but after receiving BA 7122/08 -3- deposit, he himself withdrawn huge money from the institution. Such withdrawal was not merely as a lawyer's fee. 5. It is also submitted that after receiving huge amount, petitioner along with 2nd accused met owner of a house boat and fixed Rs.25 lakhs as the price and advanced some amount also. Petitioner is only a raw junior having 1 ½ years practice. After the decision was taken to close down the institution, he even took away four lap tops from the institution. Three lap tops were returned to the office boys but one is even now retained by petitioner even now. The one retained by him is the personal lap top of 1st accused, which may contain material evidence in this case. The said lap top is to be seized and petitioner is required for interrogation. Investigating agency also expects that more materials can be gathered by interrogating petitioner in custody and hence, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 6. On hearing both sides, considering the serious nature of the allegations made and the alleged role of petitioner in the running of the institution and various other activities and also the fact that petitioner is allegedly in possession of the lap top which would be a material evidence in this case, I find that petitioner BA 7122/08 -4- would be required for interrogation also and its recovery and hence, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to petitioner. 7. The crime was registered as early as on 27-8-2008 and petitioner was implicated as an accused on 4-10-2008. According to learned Public Prosecutor, petitioner is absconding but his presence is required for interrogation. Hence, petitioner is directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer without any delay and co-operate with the investigation. Whether he surrenders or not, police is at liberty to arrest him and proceed in accordance with law. With this direction, this petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. mn.