Dismissed

S.Pradeep v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Feb 2016Bail Appl./234/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala disposed of multiple bail applications by the accused Pradeep and Sambu in anti-piracy fraud cases. Bail to Pradeep was dismissed due to deep involvement and conspiracy, while bail to Sambu was granted with specific conditions. All judgments carry common orders under specific statute sections.

What did the court decide?

Bail applications for Pradeep were dismissed. For Sambu, bail is granted on execution of a bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties and appearance within ten days.

S.Pradeep Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

MONDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/19TH MAGHA, 1937

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 234 of 2016 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 1355/15 OF THRIKKUNNAPUZHA POLICE STATION NOW PENDING AS CRIME NO. CBCID (ANTI-PIRACY CELL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CRIME NO. 156/CR/APC/TVM/15)

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED 3 :

¶8

S. PRADEEP S/O. SUKUMARAN, AGED 40 YEARS MADHAVAM VEEDU, MAHADEVIKKADU MURI KARTHIKAPALLY VILLAGE.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.B.RENJITH KUMAR

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT :

¶11

STATE OF KERALA RERPESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C. RASHEED

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29-01-2016, ALONG WITH BA. 237/2016 & CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 08-02-2016 SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

¶15

SUNIL THOMAS, J.

¶16

- - - - B.A. Nos. 234, 237, 238, 242, 245, 246, 247,253,254,257, 258,259,260,261, 262 ,263, 264,265, 342, 343, 344, 345,346,347,348, 553,554,555,556 of 2016

¶17

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

¶18

Dated this the 8^th day of February, 2016

¶19

COMMON ORDER

¶20

All the above cases arise from Crime Nos. CBCID (Anti-Piracy Cell, Thiruvananthapuram), 156/CR/APC/TVM/15, 147/CR/APC/TVM/15,152/CR/APC/TVM/15,153/CR/APC/TVM/15,14 9/CR/APC/TVM/15,160/CR/APC/TVM/2015,145/CR/APC/TVM/15,16 2/CR/APC/TVM/15,150/CR/APC/TVM/15,151/CR/APC/TVM/15,154/C R/APC/TVM/15,148/CR/APC/TVM/15,157/CR/APC/TVM/15,158/CR/ APC/TVM/15,155/CR/APC/TVM/15,159/CR/APC/TVM/15,161/CR/AP C/TVM/15,146/CR/APC/TVM/15,165/CR/APC/TVM/15,169/CR/APC/ TVM/15,166/CR/APC/TVM/15,168/CR/APC/TVM/15,167/CR/APC/TV M/15,164/CR/APC/TVM/15,163/CR/APC/TVM/15,171/CR/APC/TVM/ 15,170/CR/APC/TVM/15,174/CR/APC/TVM/15, and 172/CR/APC/ TVM/15 of Alappuzha District. Petitioner by name S.Pradeep is arrayed as one of the accused in all other crimes.

¶21

B.A.Nos.709/2016 and 710/2016 are the anticipatory bail

¶22

B.A.No.234/2016 &others

¶23

¶24

applications preferred by the said Pradeep and all other applications are regular bail applications preferred by him seeking bail. Since the party array differ in each case, accused are referred to by name hereinafter.

¶25

The crux of the allegation is that one lady by name Saranya had been representing among local people that she was capable of procuring them employment in Government jobs including police department. It is stated that she thereby had collected huge amounts and certificates from several persons, offering them Government jobs. In few cases, there is an allegation that candidates were taken to far away places including Kannur, making them believe that their employment in the police department was ready. She is claimed to have received assistance from the remaining accused at different levels. In the meanwhile, complaints were laid by several persons,(as on record 32 complaints,)and are pending against the main accused. The allegation against the accused by name Pradeep is that he is in police and had been aiding and assisting Saryna in making the candidates believe that she was capable of procuring job.

¶26

Another allegation is that the Government jobs were offered to the candidates, application forms and appointment orders were forged for the candidates, using the laptop of the accused. It is further alleged that records were created with the official emblem of

¶27

B.A.No.234/2016 &others

¶28

¶29

the police.

¶30

Case diary was made available. A perusal of the entire records disclose that Pradeep had been maintaining close relationship with Sarnya since 2014. Thereafter, it appears that he had informed her, along with few other persons, that jobs were available and that if she could procure prospective candidates and certificates collected, job can be assured. It is alleged that she had accordingly collected, huge amounts and handed it over to Pradeep. Even though Sarnya is alleged as the person who had solicited job seekers, collecting documents and certificate, it appears that Pradeep was also actively involved in every stage. It appears that huge amounts were collected and shared. The role of others revealed by Saranya is yet to be unearthed. In the above circumstances, complicity of the Petitioner herein is large.

¶31

It appears that the investigation has substantially progressed. In several of the cases, almost 60 days is complete. The final report has not been laid. Having regard to these facts, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:

¶32

(i) The petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with two sureties

¶33

for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

¶34

B.A.No.234/2016 &others

¶35

¶36

(ii) One of the sureties shall file an affidavit offering an item of property worth not less than Rs.15,00,000/(Rupees fifteen lakhs only) as security for liability arising from these transactions. If none of the above sureties are available for so offering, the accused himself or a third party having a right to that property can offer a property as security. The original title shall be produced. It is made clear that for fixing the value of the property it is not necessary that the valuation certificate from the concerned revenue authority is produced. But the court can consider the factors like the available extent, the proximity to main road and other factors for approximately fixing the value. Affidavit of any person in support of the valuation can also be relied.

¶37

Iii). It is made clear that same sureties can be offered in all cases. Further security as above need not be offered in each case, but can be commonly offered in all cases.

¶38

iv). He shall surrender his passport within seven days, if not file an affidavit.

¶39

v). He shall not threaten, coerce or intimidate

¶40

B.A.No.234/2016 &others

¶41

¶42

the defacto complainant or his witnesses.

¶43

Sd/SUNIL THOMAS Judge

¶44

dpk

¶45

/true copy/ PS to Judge.

¶46

B.A.No.234/2016 &others

¶47

¶48

170/CR/APC/TVM/15,

¶49

156/CR/APC/TVM/2015,155/CR/APC/TVM/2015, 152/CR/APC/TVM/2015, 153/CR/APC/TVM/2015, 149/CR/APC/TVM/2015,160/CR/APC/TVM/2015,

¶50

145/CR/APC/TVM/2015,162/CR/APC/TVM/2015,

¶51

150/CR/APC/TVM/2015,151/CR/APC/TVM/2015, 154/CR/APC/TVM/2015, 158/CR/APC/TVM/2015, 157/CR/APC/TVM/2015,158/CR/APC/TVM/2015,

¶52

155/CR/APC/TVM/2015,159/CR/APC/TVM/2015,

¶53

161/CR/APC/TVM/2015, 146/CR/APC/TVM/2015,

¶54

Crime No.CBCID (Anti-Piracy Cell, Thiruvananthapuram ALP 97/65/CR/APC/TVMP 71

¶55

(Anti-Piracy Cell, Thiruvananthapuram ALP 169/CR/APC/TVMP 71

¶56

B.A.No.234/2016 &others

¶57

¶58

166/CR/APC/TVMP 71 168/CR/APC/TVMP 71

¶59

167/CR/APC/TVMP 71 164/CR/APC/TVMP 71 163/CR/APC/TVMP 71 171/CR/APC/TVMP 71 170/CR/APC/TVMP 71 174/CR/APC/TVMP 71

¶60

172/CR/APC/TVMP 71

¶61

CBCID(Anti-Pircy Cell, Thiruvananthapuram.

¶62

B.A.No.234/2016 &others

¶63

¶64

B.A.No.234/2016 &others

¶65

¶66

B.A.No.234/2016 &others

¶67

¶68

B.A.No.234/2016 &others

¶69

¶70

All the above cases arise from CBCID Nos.(Anti-Piracy Cell, Thiruvananthapuram), 170/CR/APC/TVM/15, 156/CR/APC/TVM/15, 147/CR/APC/TVM/15,152/CR/APC/TVM/15,153/CR/APC/TVM/15,149/C R/APC/TVM/15,160/CR/APC/TVM/2015,145/CR/APC/TVM/15,162/CR/ APC/TVM/15,150/CR/APC/TVM/15,151/CR/APC/TVM/15,154/CR/APC/ TVM/15,148/CR/APC/TVM/15,157/CR/APC/TVM/15,158/CR/APC/TVM/ 15,155/CR/APC/TVM/15,159/CR/APC/TVM/15,161/CR/APC/TVM/15,14 6/CR/APC/TVM/15,165/CR/APC/TVM/15,169/CR/APC/TVM/15,166/CR/ APC/TVM/15,168/CR/APC/TVM/15,167/CR/APC/TVM/15,164/CR/APC/ TVM/15,163/CR/APC/TVM/15,171/CR/APC/TVM/15,170/CR/APC/TVM/ 15, 174/CR/APC/TVM/15, & 172/CR/APC/TVM/15 of Alappuzha District & Crime No.1386 & 1404 of Thrikkunnapuzha police station respectively.

¶71

B.A.No.234/2016 &others

¶72

¶73

Petitioner by name Sambu in B.A. No.597/2016 is accused No. 7 in Crime No.1379/2015 of Ambalapuzha Police station renumbered as Crime Branch Crime No.170/CR/APC/TVM/15). Petitioner by name S.Pradeep is arrayed as one of the accused in all other crimes.

¶74

B.A.Nos.709/2016 and 710/2016 are the anticipatory bail applications preferred by the said Pradeep and all other applications are regular bail applications preferred by him seeking bail. Since the party array differ in each case, accused are referred to by names hereinafter.

¶75

The crux of the allegation is that one lady by name Saranya had been representing among local people that she was capable of procuring them employment in Government jobs including police department. It is stated that she thereby had collected huge amounts and their certificates from several persons offering them Government jobs. In few cases, there is an allegation that candidates were taken to far away places including Kannur, making them believe that their employment in the police department was ready. She is claimed to have received assistance from the remaining accused at different levels. In the meanwhile, complaints laid by several persons,( as on record 32 complaints,) are pending against the main accused.

¶76

The allegation against the accused by name Pradeep is that

¶77

B.A.No.234/2016 &others

¶78

¶79

he is a police constable he had been representing and assisting Saryna in making the candidates believe that she was capable of procuring job.

¶80

The crux of the allegation is that the Government jobs were offered to the candidates and appointments orders were forged for the candidates, using laptop of the accused. It is alleged that records were created with the official details of the Government.

¶81

Allegation against the Petitioner Shambo is that he had also aided Saryna.

¶82

CD was made available. A perusal of the entire facts disclose that Pradeep had been maintaining close relationship with Sarnya since 2014. Thereafter, it appears that he had informed her, along with few other persons, that jobs were available and that if she could procure prospective candidates and certificates collected, job can be assured. It is alleged that she had collected, accordingly, huge amounts and handed it over to Pradeep. On one occasion, it is stated, complaint arose based on which, ultimately complaint was settled on payment of Rs 10 Lakhs given by Pradeep. Even though Sarnya is alleged on record a person who has been moving around, making representation to the public, collecting documents and certificate, it appears that Pradeep was actively involved in each and every stage and she was working under his direction and instructions. It appears

¶83

B.A.No.234/2016 &others

¶84

¶85

that huge amounts were collected and even Pradeep is stated to have given application forms generated from laptop to be given to the candidates. Sharyna used to get signature of the candidates and hand it over to Pradeep. He used to affix the seal of the Kerala Police in the papers. It appears that seven persons were taken to the hospital for eye inspection as directed by the said Pradeep.

¶86

The role played by Sambu is that he along with few candidates and Saranya had gone to Kannur. It appears that he had no direct involvement in the transaction. Close perusal of the records indicate that Pradeep is one of the main kin pin who along with Sharnya had been canvasing candidates and collecting money. In the above circumstances, complicity of the Petitioner herein is clear and larger

¶87

Having regard to the deep rooted conspiracy of Pradeep with Sharnya and others, I am not inclined to grant bail at this juncture which may hamper the investigation. Having regard to these deep involvement in other cases, he is not entitled for anticipatory bail in B.A. No. 709 & 710/2016. Hence all the petitions preferred by Pradeep are dismissed.

¶88

Since the role played by the Petitioner Sambu (B.A. No.597/2016) is less, I am inclined to grant bail to him subject to the following conditions;

¶89

B.A.No.234/2016 &others

¶90

¶91

i). Petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation. Thereafter if he is proposed to be arrested, he shall be released on bail on he executing a bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- ( Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each.

¶92

(ii). He shall not threaten, coerce or intimidate the defacto complainant or his witnesses.

¶93

(iii). He shall appear before the Investigating officer as and when called for and co-operate with the investigation.

¶94

SUNIL THOMAS Judge

¶95

dpk

¶96

B.A.No.234/2016 &others

¶97

S.Pradeep v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Pradeep v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jithu @ Jithin Lal Vs State of Kerala

Binoy Raj Vs State of Kerala

Sebastian Vs State of Kerala

Mathews Stephen Vs State of Kerala

Bijeesh Vs State of Kerala

Shihab Vs State of Kerala