IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 1ST MARCH 2010 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 790 of 2010 CRIME NO.34 OF 2010 OF STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PARIYARAM MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- SUDHIKANTH.K.V, S/O.LATE RAGHAVAN, PUTHIYAPURAYIL HOUSE, TEMPLE GATE PO, THIRUVANGAD, TELLICHERRY, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SOHAN SMT.SREEJA SOHAN.K. RESPONDENT: STATE -------------------- STATE, REPRESENTED BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PARIYARAM MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSEUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. ADDL.R2 IMPLEADED: P.P.NISAR, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O/ASSU, QUADEERI MANZIL, PAIKATH VALAPPIL, O.V.ROAD, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT. ADDL.R2 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 22.2.2010 ON CRL.M.A.NO.782 OF 2010. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ ADDL.R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/2/2010, THE COURT ON 01/03/2010, ALONG WITH B.A.NO. 926 OF 2010, PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NOS.790 & 926 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 1st day of March, 2010 O R D E R B.A.No.790 of 2010 is filed by accused No.1 and B.A.No.926 of 2010 is filed by accused No.2 in Crime No.34 of 2010 of Pariyaram Medical College Police Station, Thalassery, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for pre-arrest bail. 2. The offence alleged against the accused is under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. One P.P.Nizar, O.V.Road, Thalassery filed a petition before the Director General of Police, Thiruvananthapuram, which was forwarded to the District Superintendent of Police, Kannur and later, forwarded to the Pariyaram Medical College Police Station, where, it was registered as Crime No.34 of 2010. The gist of the allegations made by the de facto complainant P.P.Nizar is the following: P.P.Nizar is working abroad. He met accused No.1 Sudhikanth, son of “INTUC Raghavan”. While talking, Nizar told Sudhikanth about the necessity of getting admission for MBBS to his daughter. B.A. NOS.790 & 926 OF 2010 :: 2 :: Sudhikanth stated that he would arrange a seat for MBBS. He introduced the second accused, Santhosh Kumar, to Nizar. Sudhikanth and Santhosh Kumar told him that a seat could be secured on payment of Rs.39 lakhs. As directed by them, Nizar took a Demand Draft for Rs.8 lakhs, payable to the Principal of Pariyaram Medical College. Later, Sudhikanth told him that a Demand Draft would not be received and that only cash would be accepted. Accordingly, the Demand Draft was cancelled. They went to the Medical College, Pariyaram. Nizar was made to believe that the children of two ministers would come to the College and they would make arrangements for securing the seat. While in the college, Nizar, his daughter, Santhosh Kumar and Sudhikanth, met accused No.3 Arun Kumar, accused No.4 Reeju Varghese (native of Pathanamthitta) and accused No.5 Ratheesh. As the first instalment, an amount of Rs.4.5 lakhs was paid to Sudhikanth, who entrusted the amount to Santhosh Kumar and Santhosh Kumar paid the amount to Arun Kumar, Reeju Varghese and Ratheesh. Nizar and his daughter were assured that the seat would be made available within four days and confirmation letter would be sent to them. After two days, Sudhikanth and Santhosh Kumar demanded Rs.5 lakhs more and Nizar was directed to pay the amount at B.A. NOS.790 & 926 OF 2010 :: 3 :: Ernakulam. Believing the words of accused Nos.1 and 2, Nizar went along with the first accused Sudhikanth to Ernakulam. They met accused No. 6 Saji Padmanabhan and Reeju Varghese at the office of Reliance Life Insurance. Saji Padmanabhan is the Manager and Reeju Varghese is the staff of Reliance Life Insurance. Saji Padmanabhan and Reeju Varghese stated that one Latheef, who was a polit bureau member from Andhra Pradesh, would be making arrangements for securing the seat. 4. As assured, the seat for MBBS was not secured even after three months. Nizar demanded to repay the amount paid by him. He contacted several political leaders including the Secretary of CPI (M), Kannur District, who contacted the District Secretary of CPI(M) at Pathanamthitta. Arun Kumar stated that he was responsible to repay only Rs.4.5 lakhs and he executed an agreement for repayment of the same. Santhosh Kumar and Ashraf were the witnesses to the agreement. Arun Kumar stated that the liability to repay Rs.5 lakhs was on Reeju Varghese, Sudhikanth, Saji Padmanabhan and Ratheesh. All the efforts made by Nizar to get back the amount failed and, therefore, he filed the petition before the Director General of Police. B.A. NOS.790 & 926 OF 2010 :: 4 :: 5. Sudhikanth says that he is a well known politician and son of a well known political leader. It is stated that Sudhikanth proposes to contest in the Municipal election and that the case was foisted against him by his political rivals. Attempt of his rivals is to tarnish his image. The Co-operative Medical College, Pariyaram is under the control of the party men of the Marxist party. The de facto complainant was a worker of Marxist party. Sudhikanth has no connection with the management of Pariyaram Medical College. It is submitted that Sudhikanth is prepared to co-operate with the investigation and that no custodial interrogation is necessary. Since the petitioner is a well known politician, there is no chance of his absconding or fleeing from justice. 6. Santhosh Kumar also submits that the case was foisted against him and that he has no connection with the offence. The other contentions raised by Sudhikanth were also raised by Santhosh Kumar. 7. In B.A.No.790 of 2010, the de facto complainant filed an application praying to implead him as additional respondent and to B.A. NOS.790 & 926 OF 2010 :: 5 :: hear him in the Bail Application. The learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant was also heard. He submitted that Sudhikanth has no political image. He was expelled from the political party. He contested in the local body elections as a rebel candidate. It is also submitted that Sudhikanth is involved in a forgery case. The de facto complainant submits that his daughter is mentally upset due to the incidents which took place. 8. The learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the applications. It is submitted that there is a racket who cheat people making them believe that seats for MBBS and other professional courses could be secured on payment of huge amounts. Custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required. It would appear that persons having political support are involved in the case. If anticipatory bail is granted, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case. 9. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence and the allegations levelled against the petitioners, I do not think that this is a fit case where anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners. Custodial B.A. NOS.790 & 926 OF 2010 :: 6 :: interrogation of the petitioners may be required during investigation. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioners, it would be detrimental to the effective investigation of the case. The offence alleged against the petitioners is very grave in nature. It is also likely that the petitioners may tamper with evidence and intimidate or influence the witnesses. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Applications are dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/