IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 22ND AUGUST 2011 / 31ST SRAVANA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 6212 of 2011() ----------------------------- Crime No.344 of 2011 of Balussery Police Station. PETITIONERS: ACCUSED 1,2(IN CUSTODY) ------------------------------------------- 1. SURESH A., S/O.APPUNNI NAIR, ARANGATH VEEDU, VALAMPOOR POST, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. SUBRAMANIAN, S/O.AYYAPPAN, MALAMPURATH CHALIL HOUSE, VENGARA P.O., AREENKULAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE SMT.LATHA PRABHAKARAN SMT.DHANYA S.DHARAN SRI.K.M.JAMALUDHEEN RESPONDENT: --------------- THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, BALUSSERY POLICE STATION, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.MANU THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Bail Appln.No.6212 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of August, 2011 ORDER This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos.3 and 6 in Crime No.344 of 2011 of Balussery Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation (Banning) Act. 3. The prosecution case is the following:- Accused Nos. 2 to 6 are the team leaders of a company called Way 2 Life. They propagated that if shares were taken in the said company based in Malaysia, the shareholders would be getting several times the amounts invested by them and the details of the same would be available in the website of the company. Later, the website disappeared and the investors did not get back the amount deposited by them. They did not get the assured returns also. Bail Appln.No.6212/2011 : 2 : 4. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that in March, 2010, the first petitioner filed a complaint against Mujeeb Rahman and Sakthivel Chitra Selvakumar alleging that the first petitioner and other investors were cheated by the accused persons in that complaint. Annexure-2 is the copy of the complaint in which it is stated that the website of the company disappeared and the first petitioner herein made enquiries at Chennai and he was satisfied that the whole thing was a fraud. Offences under Sections 420 and 468 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code were alleged against the accused in Annexure-2 complaint. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor was directed to get instructions with reference to Annexure-2 complaint (Crime No.351 of 2010 of Perinthalmanna Police Station). The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the Sub Inspector of Police, Perinthalmanna Police Station filed a final report in Crime No.351 of 2010 stating that the matter involved was a case of civil nature. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not Bail Appln.No.6212/2011 : 3 : think that the petitioners can be detained further. Taking into account the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the duration of the judicial custody undergone by the petitioners, the nature of the offences and the present stage of investigation, I am of the view that bail can be granted to the petitioners. 7. The petitioners shall be released on bail on their executing bond for `25,000/-(Rupees Twenty five thousand only) each with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II, Perambra, subject to the following conditions: A) The petitioners shall report before the investigating officer between 9 A.M. and 11 A.M. on all Mondays, till the final report is filed or until further orders; B) The petitioners shall surrender their Passport before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II, Perambra. If the petitioners do not have Passport, an affidavit sworn to by them to that effect shall be filed before the learned Magistrate. C) The petitioners shall appear before the Bail Appln.No.6212/2011 : 4 : investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; D) The petitioners shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence. E) The petitioners shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail. F) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to be cancelled. The Bail Application is allowed as above. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE skj