IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 31ST JANUARY 2008 / 11TH MAGHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 511 of 2008() ---------------------------- CRIME NO. 578/07 OF VIZHINJAM POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED ------------------------------------ 1. R.MADHUSOODANAN, PULIVILA HOUSE, UCHAKADA, PAYATHIVILA P.O., BALARAMAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SINDHU, DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.V.PREMCHAND RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VIZHINJAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. JAI GEORGE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- B.A. No. 511 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of January, 2008 ORDER The petitioners face allegations in a crime registered under Sec.420 read with Sec.34 of the IPC. They are Trustees/office bearers of a registered private trust. The private trust, it is alleged, has been receiving amounts from gullible members of the public under various heads. They have misappropriated the amounts and with no intention to return it to the members of the public, such amounts have been collected. The collection has made through the Field Officers of the trust. The complaint comes forth now from the Field Officers themselves. They say that the amounts collected are not properly accounted and the subscribers are taken for a ride by the Trustees. It is on the complaint of such Field Officers who say that they are vexed and harassed by the B.A. No. 511 OF 2008 -: 2 :- subscribers from whom they had collected amounts on behalf of the trust, that the F.I.R. was registered. Investigation is in progress. The petitioners apprehend imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are absolutely innocent. They have been running the trust honestly and bona fide. There is no element of any cheating at all. The Field Officers have been collecting amounts from the members of the public and had not been promptly remitting the same to the trust. The petitioners had raised complaints against the Filed Officers. The police had not taken any action against the Field Officers. It is in this context that the police after receiving the complaint conveniently from the Field Officers are proceeding against the petitioners now. The petitioners may be granted anticipatory bail, it is prayed. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that a thorough investigation is to be conducted. If the Field Officers are responsible, they have also to be proceeded against. But the available indications suggest that the trustees are involved in a deliberate attempt to mislead, defraud and deceive gullible customers. At this stage, there is satisfactory indications pointing to the culpability of the petitioners. The petitioners B.A. No. 511 OF 2008 -: 3 :- have got to be interrogated thoroughly. At this stage, they may not be permitted to arm themselves with an order of anticipatory bail. Grant of anticipatory bail would hamper the smooth course of the investigation. The petitioners have to be interrogated. Only if such interrogation reveals their complicity and the necessity to arrest, they shall be arrested. At this stage, the petitioners may not be granted anticipatory bail, prays the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. At this early stage of the investigation, I shall not embark on any detailed discussions on merits about the acceptability of the allegations or the credibility of the data collected. Suffice it to say that on an anxious consideration of all the relevant inputs – I have gone through the Case Diary also, I am satisfied that there is merit in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. The petitioners must surrender before the Investigating Officer and co-operate with the Investigating Officer. They can seek regular bail after such surrender before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction. At the moment, I find no features available in this case which can persuade this Court to invoke such discretion under Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C. 5. In the result, this bail application is dismissed; but with B.A. No. 511 OF 2008 -: 4 :- the observation that if the petitioners surrender before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate and seek bail, after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate must proceed to pass appropriate orders on merits and expeditiously. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge