IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2010 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 7611 of 2009(F) --------------------------------------- CRIME NO.203/2008 OF CBCID, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PETITIONER/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------- MILI S.NAIR, AGED 29 YEARS, VYSHALI, MELARANOOR ROAD, KARAMANA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, (CRIME NO.203 0F 2008 OF CBCID, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM). SRI.TEKCHAND, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/03/2010 ALONG WITH BA NO. 7613 OF 2009 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. Nos. 7611, 7613, 7614, 7615, 7617, 7620 & 7621 of 2009 & 1217 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of March, 2010 O R D E R When these Bail Applications (except B.A.No.1217 of 2010) came up for hearing on 19/02/2010, the following order was passed: A similar order was passed on 23/2/2010 in B.A. No.1217 of 2010. “All these Bail Applications are filed by Mili S.Nair under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. For the sake of convenience, Bail Application number, petitioner's rank as accused and crime numbers are shown below: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sl. B.A.No. Accused Crime No. No. No. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. 7611 of 2009 A4 203/08,CBCID, Thiruvananthapuram 2. 7613 of 2009 A3 219/08,CBCID, Thiruvananthapuram 3. 7614 of 2009 A2 170/08,CBCID, Thiruvananthapuram 4. 7615 of 2009 A9 33/09,CBCID, Thiruvananthapuram 5. 7617 of 2009 A10 32/09,CBCID, Thiruvananthapuram 6. 7620 of 2009 A10 31/09,CBCID, Thiruvananthapuram 7. 7621 of 2009 A4 220/08,CBCID, Thiruvananthapuram ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. These cases are popularly known as Total 4 U B.A. Nos. 7611/2009 and connected cases 2 scam case involving Rupees 53 crores. The allegation is that the accused persons induced depositors to deposit money in various concerns like Total 4 U, I – NEST Investment Solutions, NEST Investment Solutions, SJR Group etc. It is stated that 35 cases were registered. In ten cases, the petitioner is an accused. It is submitted that in two cases, charge sheets were filed. The offences alleged against the accused are under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The petitioner submits that she was only an employee of Sabarinath, who was really running all the aforesaid establishments. The petitioner states that she had also deposited huge amounts in the financial institutions referred to above and she had lost lakhs of rupees. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner is involved in the offence and that she was also a beneficiary to the various illegal transactions in which the accused persons indulged. It is submitted that the petitioner was the Manager of I – NEST Investment Solutions and before her appointment as the Manager, she was the Financial Advisor of the concern. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner had a facility to operate a particular account exclusively and that she was fully aware of the transactions entered into between the customers and the concerns. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if the petitioner is arrested and detained, she would be put to great prejudice and hardship. She has to maintain a B.A. Nos. 7611/2009 and connected cases 3 child aged only two years. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is prepared to co-operate with the investigation. She is prepared to appear before the investigating officer on any date fixed by this Court and to fully co-operate with the investigation. She is prepared to disclose all the relevant facts. It is submitted that arrest and detention of the petitioner is not required for achieving that purpose. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner cannot claim anticipatory bail as a matter of right. The offences alleged against her are serious in nature. In spite of the fact that the petitioner could not be arrested, final report was filed in two cases. If the petitioner fully co- operates with the investigation and discloses all the relevant facts truly and honestly, the prosecution is not very much concerned about whether the petitioner is detained in judicial custody or not. 8. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that it may be made clear that in case the petitioner does not co- operate with the investigation, the Bail Applications would be heard on the merits. The learned counsel for the petitioner fully agreed to the suggestion made by the learned Public Prosecutor. 9. Therefore, I am of the view that before disposing of the Bail Applications, an opportunity should be given to the petitioner to appear before the investigating officer. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the petitioner to appear before the investigating officer at 9 A.M. on 1.3.2010, B.A. Nos. 7611/2009 and connected cases 4 2.3.2010, 4.3.2010 and 5.3.2010. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the order before the investigating officer. Post on 11.3.2010. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner will not be arrested until further orders in the seven crimes mentioned herein above. ” 2. The learned Director General of Prosecution as well as the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has complied with the directions contained in the orders dated 19/02/2010 and 23/2/2010. 3. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence and other circumstances and also taking note of the fact that the directions have been complied with by the petitioner, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the petitioner, the officer in charge of the police station shall release her on bail on her executing bond for Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions: B.A. Nos. 7611/2009 and connected cases 5 A) The petitioner shall report before the investigating officer between 9 A.M and 11 A.M. on alternate Mondays, till the final report is filed or until further orders; B) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; C) The petitioner shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence; D) The petitioner shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail; E) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to be cancelled. Bail Applications are allowed to the extent indicated above. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm