IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 14TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 23RD KARTHIKA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6652 of 2008() ----------------------------- CMP.4665/2008 of ADDL.C.J.M.,TRIVANDRUM ( CBCID CRIME NO.169/CR/2008-MEDICAL COLLGE P.S.CRIME 480/2008) PETITIONER/ A-6 ----------------------------------- BINDU SURESH, AGED 33 YEARS,D/O.LALITHA, 'THIRUVATHIRA' VEEDU NEAR CGO COMPLEX, POONKULAM WARD, THIRUVALLAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.VENUGOPALAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THKE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CRIME BRANCH C.I.D, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.K.SURESH THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------------- Bail Appl.No. 6652 of 2008 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of November, 2008. ORDER Petition for bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Section 420 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioner is a Branch Manager of a financial institution. Petitioner fraudulently and dishonestly induced various persons to make deposits in the institution run by first accused on the promise that huge interest will be paid to them. She fraudulently deceived them, with intention to cause wrongful gain to petitioner as well as wrongful gain to depositors. Neither interest nor the amount was paid to depositors. On a complaint made by several persons, a crime was registered against various persons including petitioner and she is the 6th accused. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is a woman and a mother of two minor children and she is in custody from 22.9.2008 onwards. She has not committed any offence and she has not deceived any person or induced any person to make any deposit with intention to cheat. Petitioner was only an employee under the first accused and she herself had deposited amounts in the first accused's institution in the name of her husband. The fact that she herself is a depositor [B.A.No.6652/08] 2 itself will reveal that she had no criminal intention to cheat any person. If she had known that money will be lost if deposited she would not have deposited her own money in the first accused's institution. It is also submitted that petitioner being a woman may be granted the benefit of proviso to Section 437 Cr.P.C. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor strongly opposed this bail application and submitted that all the contentions raised by petitioner were considered by this Court in the order passed in the earlier bail application, just 20 days prior to the filing of this petition. There is no change in the circumstances for re- consideration of her prayer for bail. On the other hand, investigating officer was successful in collecting more materials against petitioner revealing her independent role in the offence, it is submitted. It was also pointed out that petitioner was not co- operating with the investigation right form the beginning and when she was taken into police custody on application on two occasions. While she was interrogated, she did not divulge many facts and she even gave all wrong information to investigating officer. He had to collect sufficient materials to confront her with the same and after getting more evidence against her, she was again taken into police custody as per order of the Magistrate court and she was interrogated at length. When the evidence were placed before her, she had no other alternative than to admit various facts which she had denied earlier, it is submitted. 4. As per the materials now available, petitioner has committed a clear case of cheating. She was involved in the whole affair ever since the beginning and she had worked hand in [B.A.No.6652/08] 3 glove with first accused. She amassed huge wealth. Though she was only a Branch Manager, she constructed a house worth Rs.40 lakhs. She gave huge amounts as advance for purchasing a house boat along with first accused. She cheated more than 100 persons by deceiving them by fraudulent representations and the amounts collected run to crores. She received nearly a commission of Rs.60 lakhs and she had withdrawn it from the account of the institution. All these happened within a short span of time and all these are born out by sufficient materials in the case diary, it is submitted. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that every day, more and more persons are coming forward making allegations against petitioner and those are being investigated into. This is a case where hard-earned money of many individuals were practically looted by petitioner and others and misappropriated for their own use. The benefit of proviso to section 437 Cr.P.C. is not intended to be extended to persons like petitioner. She should have been more careful at least about the welfare of her own children, before committing the offence of cheating and now she cannot seek bail in their welfare. Though learned counsel for petitioner would contend that youngest child is 2 ½ years old, the said child is actually aged more than 4 years, it is submitted. 6. The submissions made by learned counsel for petitioner are all misleading and baseless and bail may not be granted on the basis of such submissions, it is submitted. It is also pointed out that the fact that petitioner was a depositor will not exonerate her from the criminal acts committed by her, particularly since as [B.A.No.6652/08] 4 per the evidence now available, she had withdrawn huge amounts running to lakhs and lakhs from the institution and hence she has not lost anything by her own deposit. But the loss was caused to public, it is submitted. 7. On hearing both sides, considering the nature of allegations made and the nature of investigation required and the fact that complaints are received from time to time against petitioner, I find it not fit to grant bail to petitioner at this stage. If bail is granted, it is likely that petitioner may abscond, influence or intimidate witnesses for not disclosing incriminating materials against her. She is also likely to tamper with evidence. I am not persuaded even by the proviso to section 437 of Cr.P.C, to grant bail to petitioner on an evaluation of the facts and circumstances of this case, especially on consideration of the stage of investigation. This petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Krs.