IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2011 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 6200 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.1996/2011 OF ALUVA POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED : ---------------------- K.CHANDRAN NAIR, KOTTARATH HOUSE, KRISHNANJALI, P.O.CHITTILAPPILLY, THRISSUR-680551. BY ADV. SRI.V.B.UNNIRAJ RESPONDENTS: STATE & COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALUVA POLICE STATION, ALUVA. ADGP-SRI.K.I.ABDUL RASHEED THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Bail Appln.No.6200 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 09th day of December, 2011 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.2 in Crime No.1996 of 2011 of Aluva Police Station, Ernakulam District. 2. The offence alleged against the accused is under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The allegation against the petitioner is that he, as a Promoter of Nano Power Corporation, made several persons believe that if they deposited amount in the company, they would get high returns. Classes were held at different places to promote deposit of amount and tall claims were made by the accused. Believing the words of the accused, the de facto complainant and her friends deposited a sum of Rupees Eighteen lakhs in the company. They did not get the returns as promised nor did they get back the amount paid by them. 4. The learned Additional Director General of Prosecution submitted that several cases have been registered Bail Appln.No.6200/2011 : 2 : against the petitioner and others alleging commission of similar offences and they unlawfully collected Crores of Rupees from thousands of persons and amassed wealth. 5. The allegations levelled against the petitioner and the other accused are very grave in nature. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to get the discretionary 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 Application is dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE skj