IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 8TH ASWINA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6170 of 2008() ----------------------------- CMP.4665/2008 of ADDL.C.J.M.,TRIVANDRUM (IN C.B.C.I.D. CRIME NO. 169/CR/2008 - MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION CRIME NO.480/2008) PETITIONER/A6:- --------------------------------- 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 SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DEPUTY SUPEPRINTENDENT OF POLICE, CRIME BRANCH C.I.D. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SUB INSEPCTOR 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. BY P.P. SRI C.K. SURESH THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A. No. 6170 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 30th day of September,2008 O R D E R Petition for bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 120B, 406, 420 read with section 34 IPC. According to prosecution, on a complaint filed by defacto-complainant, a crime was registered against accused 1 and 2 who are Managing Director and General Manager of a financial institution. The allegation, in short, is that they induced and deceived defacto-complainant and various persons by making fraudulent representation to make huge deposits running to crores of rupees, with an intention to make wrongful gain by the accused. During investigation, it is revealed that several other persons are also involved in the offence and they also committed the offences, in conspiracy and in furtherance of their common intention, and also independently. Therefore, investigation is being conducted into offences under sections 120B, 406, 420 read with section 34 IPC. Petitioner is included as accused No.6. She is the Manager of one of the branches of the financial institution. 3. Petitioner was arrested on 22-9-2008 and she is remanded to judicial custody. Learned counsel for petitioner BA 6170/08 -2- submitted that petitioner is a B. Com. graduate and she was working as an Accountant in the institution of 1st accused. She has nothing to do with the allegations made. There is absolutely no whisper against her in the remand report, except a general and vague allegation. Even as per the remand report, she has not allegedly deceived any person or induced any person, to make any deposit and not even the name of any of a person who is allegedly cheated finds a place in the remand report. Therefore, petitioner's remand is totally unwarranted, it is submitted. No offence is made out against her and there is no allegation that she committed any offence in furtherance of common intention. The only material available is the remand report and it does not disclose any of the allegations made against petitioner, it is submitted. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner also submitted that even if the entire allegations are accepted, even 1st accused has not committed any offence under sections quoted above. At the worst, he may be liable under the R.B.I. Act for running an unlicensed financial institution. No person made any allegation that he was cheated by him. In fact, he was abducted by a gunda gang and detained in custody for some time and in the BA 6170/08 -3- meantime, some rumours were spread that he had vanished with the money, which was accepted as deposits which are untrue, it is submitted. 5. According to petitioner, it is not correct to say that petitioner cheated any person because she herself is a depositor in the institution. If the petitioner has any intention to cheat, she herself will not deposit money in the institution run by her and be a victim by herself. it is submitted. It is also pointed out that a petition for custodial interrogation was filed after three days of her remand, and yesterday, a petition was filed stating that she is not required for interrogation. Therefore, there is no substance in saying that her remand is required for facilitating the custodial interrogation by police. The mere fact the petitioner is required for interrogation is not a reason to refuse bail, it is submitted. Petitioner being a woman is also entitled to benefit under the proviso to section 437 Cr.P.C. and therefore, a liberal view may be taken in favour of petitioner, it is submitted. 6. This petition is strongly opposed by learned Public Prosecutor. He submitted that crores of rupees were misappropriated by 1st accused and his associates. She was committing the offence of cheating independently and also in BA 6170/08 -4- furtherance of common intention with 1st accused after entered into conspiracy with the 1st accused. These allegations are supported by materials available in the case diary. Several witnesses are questioned during investigation and her involvement in the crime is clearly revealed from the statement of such persons. According to them, petitioner induced them by false representation, with an intention to deceive them and also to make wrongful gain. She also constructed a house worth Rs.40 lakhs using the money which was withdrawn by her in the financial institution. Petition was filed for her release into the custody of police for interrogation and is pending consideration. In the meantime, 2nd accused was released yesterday, and hence the Investigating Officer filed a petition stating that petitioner may not be required for custodial interrogation. According to him, both these accused are not to be interrogated on the same day, but petitioner has to be interrogated only after interrogation of 2nd accused. Therefore, it is not correct to say that petitioner is not required for custodial interrogation at all. 7. It is not correct to say that offence involved will only fall under R.B.I. Act. There is overwhelming evidence so far collected against the petitioner. Even after the remand, witnesses are BA 6170/08 -5- questioned. They mentioned some of the names of witnesses who divulged materials against petitioner, regarding false representation, deception, cheating etc. The investigation will require considerable time for completion of the same, in view of the nature of the allegations made. If the petitioner is released on bail at this stage, it will adversely affect the investigation, It is submitted. 8. On hearing both sides I am satisfied that there are sufficient materials on record for the investigation to proceed against petitioner for the alleged offences. I am also satisfied that it is not a case in which an offence under R.B.I. Act alone is involved. More witnesses have to be questioned and petitioner's custodial interrogation is required and petition is pending consideration by lower court. The 2nd accused is released to police custody for interrogation yesterday. In the above circumstances, it may not be proper at this stage to release petitioner on bail, especially when a petition for police custody is pending before the lower court. It is true that as per proviso to the section 437 Cr.P.C., a woman is entitled to the benefit of bail, but it is well settled that depending of the nature of the allegations made and gravity of the offence such benefit need not be extended in all BA 6170/08 -6- cases. This is not a fit case where the petitioner can be granted bail even under the proviso to section 437 Cr.P.C. This petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. mn.