Dismissed

Rajesh.K.R. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC24 Jun 2016Bail Appl./3581/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed an anticipatory bail application filed by an accused charged with cheating, criminal conspiracy, and offences under the Prize Chits Act. The court held that the evidence against the accused was strong and refused pre-arrest bail.

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail application dismissed; right to seek regular bail before the Magistrate preserved.

Rajesh.K.R. Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/3RD ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 3581 of 2016

¶6

CRIME NO. 1124/CR/EOW-II/KTM/11 OF KOTTAYAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.2:

¶8

RAJESH.K.R., AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.RAGHAVAN, KANDARATH HOUSE, MANALITHARA VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY THALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.SREEJITH S.NAIR SRI.BIJU JOSEPH

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, (CRIME NO.745/2015 OF NEDUPUZHA POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT, NOW UNDER INVESTIGATION BY CBCID CRIME NO.1124/CR/EOW-III/KTM/11) REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.S.SREEJITH

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

¶15

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J

¶16

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

¶17

B.A. No.3581 of 2016

¶18

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

¶19

Dated this the 24th day of June, 2016

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

1.This petition is filed under section 438 of the Code of

¶22

Criminal Procedure by the petitioner who is accused No.3 in CBCID, Crime No.1124/CR/EOW-II/KTM/11.

¶23

The aforesaid crime was initially registered at Nedupuzha Police Station as Crime No.745 of 2015, which was later transferred to the CBCID. The offence alleged against the petitioner and others are punishable under sections 420, 506(ii) r/w 34 of the IPC.

¶24

2.The prosecution allegation is that the petitioner along with accused 1, 2 and 4 induced the defacto complainant and several others to invest money in a

¶25

BA 3581/16 2

¶26

trading concern by name “Prime Way Trading Private

¶27

Limited” of which the petitioner is alleged to be the Managing Director . Innocent investors duped by the petitioner and other directors invested large sums of money ranging from Rs 10,000/ to Rs 2,50,000/ and it is the prosecution case that they were ultimately defrauded by not repaying the principal or the interest.

¶28

3.I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the Public Prosecutor.

¶29

4.It is submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioner has absolutely nothing to do with the acts of the Company. It is pointed out that the petitioner also was a depositor in the Hectra Trading Company, which was run by the accused 2 and 4. It is also submitted that the petitioner is working as a clerk in a private firm and he had in fact gone to Coimbatore in order to get back the money deposited by him from the

¶30

BA 3581/16

¶31

¶32

company . It is on a mistaken assumption that he is

¶33

being proceeded against is the submission of the learned counsel.

¶34

5.The learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the submissions made by the petitioner and submitted that the investigation conducted till date revealed that the petitioner is the Managing Director of “Prime Way Trading Private Limited” and he had a role to play in the commission of offence. It is also pointed out that offence under sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation ( Banning ) Act , 1978 has also been incorporated against the accused.

¶35

6.After having considered the rival submissions, I am of the view that this court will not be justified in granting the relief of pre arrest bail to the petitioner.

¶36

7.Bail Application is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioner's right to surrender before the

¶37

BA 3581/16

¶38

¶39

investigating officer or the learned Magistrate and seek

¶40

regular bail shall remain unfettered, if the petitioner so appears and applies for bail, the learned Magistrate shall consider and pass orders on its merits in accordance with law and expeditiously.

¶41

Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE

¶42

vps/24.6.2016

Rajesh.K.R. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh.K.R. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunil Kumar Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Kumaran Vs State of Kerala

Abdurasak Vs State of Kerala

Rajesh Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Sufaid Vs State of Kerala

Sijeesh Vs Sub Inspector of Police