IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURBALE MRS. JUSTICE K. HEMA MONDAY, THE 5TH JULY 2010 / 14TH ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 7159 of 2009() ----------------------------- (KOTTAYAM WEST POLICE STATION - CRIME NUMBER NOT KNOWN) PETITIONER ------------------------------ R.DILIPKUMAR S/O.LATE C.K.R.NAIR, AGED 51 YEARS RESIDING AT SASTHA, VELOOR, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA REP BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. V. TEK CHAND. BY ADV. SRI. SHAJI P.CHALY. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------------- B.A. No. 7159 of 2009 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this 5th day of July, 2010. ORDER Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under Section 420 r/w 34 IPC. According to prosecution, petitioner (A1) and his wife (A2), in furtherance of common intention, cheated several persons by making them deposit huge amount of money promising to pay high interest and thereafter they did not return the money or interest. About Rs.5 crores are involved and various persons are cheated. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner was running a business under the name 'Thpppil Chit Fund' since 1987. The de facto complainant had deposited certain amounts and interest was also given from time to time. Fixed deposits were renewed along with the interest upto 2009. But thereafter, there was a set back in the business and petitioner was not able to pay interest or return the money. Attempts [B.A.No.7159/2010] 2 were made to settle the issue through mediators and this case was sent to the Mediation Centre. Petitioner's wife had offered to sell the property and pay the money. But, of course, it was not possible to satisfy the entire creditors' claim with the assets which are already available with the wife and husband and therefore the mediation failed. 4. It is strongly argued by learned counsel for petitioner that offence under Section 420 IPC will not be attracted in this case, since complainant cannot establish that there was dishonest intention at the time of inception of transaction, because the deposits were renewed from time to time and huge interest was also added to the principal amount while fixed deposits were renewed from time to time. It is only because the business failed that the petitioner was not able to repay the amount. If the petitioner is kept in jail, it will not improve the situation, but it will rather be difficult for the petitioner to return the money. Therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted, it is submitted. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for de [B.A.No.7159/2010] 3 facto complainant were heard. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that several complaints are received at the police station from various creditors stating that they are also cheated. It is true that, as stated by petitioner, fixed deposits were renewed from time to time and therefore it cannot be said that there was any intention to deceive the person at the time when the fixed deposit was made. but the dishorest intention would have arisen at the time when the fixed deposit was renewed in on the last occasion, it is argued by learned counsel for de facto complainant. At that point of time, petitioner would not have intended to pay interest or returning the money. 6. Therefore, this is not a case where there is total lack of ingredients of offence under Section 420 IPC, it submitted. It is also pointed out by learned counsel for de facto complainant that petitioner siphoned huge money from India to Singapore and he started a business in Singapore also and the matter is being investigated into by the police and hence it may not be proper to grant anticipatory bail. [B.A.No.7159/2010] 4 7. On hearing both sides, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think that investigation will be required regarding the allegation that petitioner has lucrative business in Singapore etc. Hence, petitioner's interrogation may be necessary and in such situation, I do not find it fit to grant anticipatory bail to petitioner, since it is likely that it will affect investigation adversely. Granting of bail to 2nd accused, who is a woman by itself cannot be made a ground to grant anticipatory bail to petitioner. It appears that petitioner the proprietor who is engaged in the business and as per the allegations, his wife only shared common intention to commit the offence. Petition is dismissed. Sd/- K. HEMA, JUDGE. Krs.