IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2011 / 28TH SRAVANA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 6039 of 2011() ----------------------------- PETITIONER ------------------------------ RADHA GOPI, W/O. K.K.GOPI, KALARIKKAL HOUSE, VELUTHUR.P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.C.P.RAVIKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.MANU THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. --------------------------------------- B.A.No.6039 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of August, 2011 ORDER This is an application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Crime No.580/2011 has been registered against the petitioner and her husband at Anthikkad Police Station for non bailable offences, is the basis for seeking pre arrest bail. 2. Petitioner claims to be a house wife. Petitioner along with her husband had falsely induced persons to deposit enormous sums in a financial concern, namely, 'Tik Innovators Marketing Ltd, Thrissur' and thereafter swindled the money so deposited by such investors, is the gist of the accusation covered by the crime. She is totally innocent and the allegations imputed are false, and in view of the crime registered implicating her, there is threat of her arrest and in that event she would be put to irreparable injury and harassment, is her case. 3. Opposing the application the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner and her husband are promoters of the above said financial concern and they operated a money B.A.No.6039 of 2011 2 circulation scheme, duping innocent investors with false promises of providing enormous interest. But later, they swindled the funds deposited in the financial concern. On a complaint filed by one of the investors the aforesaid crime has been registered and as of now the materials collected point to the guilty of the petitioner and her husband with some others also, and as such arrest and custodial interrogation of the petitioner is essential, is the further submission of the learned Public Prosecutor. The case diary has been produced for my perusal by the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The defacto complainant in the case who got impleaded as additional 2nd respondent also opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner stating that several innocent investors have been cheated of their lifesavings by her and other accused in the crime. 5. Having regard to the submissions made by the counsel on both sides and perusing the case diary, I find there is room of suspect the culpability of the petitioner in the offences imputed in the crime. As the materials collected by the investigating agency primafacie indicate that she is one among the promoters B.A.No.6039 of 2011 3 of the financial concern involved in money swindling, and defrauding of several investors of substantial amounts, I find the petitioner is not entitled to pre arrest bail. Petition dismissed. sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. rkc //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE