IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 2ND SEPTEMBER 2011 / 11TH BHADRA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 6817 of 2011() ----------------------------- Crime No.427 of 2011 of Kozhikode Town Police Station. PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.6,7 AND 8 ----------------------------------------------------- 1. S.RASUL HARRIS, S/O.ASARAFUDEEN,C-1, ISWARYAM PARAMOUNT, MANIAM KALLAPPA GOUNDER STREET, K.K.PUDUR, SIBABA COLONY, COIMBATHORE-641038, TAMIL NADU. 2. P.NAGARAJ, S/O.PARAMASIVAM, 16/7, RAJA STREET, NAVEEN HOSPITAL STREET, SOWRIPALAYAM, COIMBATHORE-641028. 3. P.ASHOK KUMAR, S/O.PADMANABHAN, NO.1, ABBAS GARDEN, LUNA NAGAR, EDAYARPALAYAM, COIMBATHORE-641025. BY ADV. SRI.N.SUKUMARAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.S.SHYAM SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN SRI.BOBBYMATHEW KOOTHATTUKULAM RESPONDENT(S): STATE AND COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682031. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOZHIKODE TOWN POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE-673001. BY P.P.SRI.V.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------- B.A.No.6817 OF 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of September, 2011 ORDER The petitioners stated that they are accused Nos.6,7 and 8 in Crime No.427 of 2011 of Kozhikode Town Police Station. They seek anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the second petitioner is not made an accused so far. The first petitioner is accused No.6 and the third petitioner is accused No.7, submits the learned Public Prosecutor. 2. The offences alleged against the accused are under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme(Banning) Act. 3. The first petitioner is the Chairman and the third petitioner is the Managing Director of a Company, namely, B.A.No.6817 OF 2011 2 Mas Value Insurance Consultancy Private Ltd. 4. The prosecution case is that the accused persons were conducting a money circulation scheme as defined in the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme(Banning) Act. It is alleged that the accused were engaged in promoting the sale of certain products at a price of ten times of its real value, making false promises to the customers. For example, a bracelet having a value of only less than `500/- was allegedly being sold for a sum of `5,000/- claiming that it has got magnetic power. It is also alleged that persons who are becoming members in the scheme alone will be supplied the products and they will get commission, if they enroll new members. Thus it is alleged that a money circulation scheme was being conducted. 5. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that multi-level marketing is being misinterpreted as money circulation scheme. It is submitted by the learned Senior counsel that selling of a product though at a higher value is not an offence. He submitted that even if the other members are enrolled and they are given incentives, that B.A.No.6817 OF 2011 3 would not constitute an offence under the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme(Banning) Act. 6. The learned Senior counsel submitted that an interim order was passed by the Madras High Court on a Writ Petition filed by the Company interdicting the Central Government and the State Government from interfering with the normal business activities of the Company. 7. On considering the contentions put forward by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor and also on perusing the records, prima facie, it cannot be said that no offence is involved. The matter requires investigation. The offence alleged is serious in nature. It is alleged that thousands of persons were cheated by the Company. Custodial interrogation of the petitioners may be required in the case. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioners, it would adversely affect the proper and smooth investigation of the case. B.A.No.6817 OF 2011 4 For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE. cms