Dismissed

T.a.Koshore v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Mar 2018Bail Appl./843/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge of Kerala High Court dismissed multiple bail petitions filed by directors of a chit fund company accused of misappropriating approximately Rs. 40 Crores from over 55 subscribers. The court held that the magnitude of the fraud and risk of flight warranted rejection of anticipatory bail.

What did the court decide?

Bail petitions under Section 438 Cr.P.C. dismissed; conditional direction to surrender for regular bail consideration.

T.a.Koshore Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 1ST CHAITHRA, 1940

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 843 of 2018

¶6

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

¶7

(CRIME NO.758/2017 OF KATTOOR POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT)

¶8

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

¶9

1 T.A KOSHORE, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. ATHMAJAN, THAIKOOTTATHIL HOUSE, PALLIPURAM, PALLIPORT P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶10

2 SAJI, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. ATHMAJAN, THAIKOOTTATHIL HOUSE, PALLIPURAM, PALLIPORT P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶11

3 BHAGYALAKSHMI CHIDAMBARAN, AGED 40 YEARS, W/O. T.A KISHORE, THAIKOOTTATHIL HOUSE, PALLIPURAM, PALLIPORT P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶12

BY ADVS.SRI.MANSOOR.B.H.

¶13

SRI.C.K.RAPHEEQUE

¶14

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT/STATE:

¶15

STATE OF KERALA, REP BY: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, REPRESENTING THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KATTOOR POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶16

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. AJITH MURALI

¶17

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-03-2018 ALONG WITH B.A. 844/2018 & OTHER CONTD. CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

KRJ

¶19

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., J

¶20

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = B.A.Nos.843, 844, 846, 851, 852, 858, 859, 860, 861, 862, 864, 866, 867, 868, 871, 874, 875, 880, 881, 890, 891, 943, 949, 959, 960, 961, 962, 965, 966, 967, 968, 969, 970, 971, 974, 976, 977, 978, 979, 980, 984, 1338, 1349, 1353, 1354, 1360, 1444 of 2018

¶21

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 22^nd day of March, 2018

¶22

ORDER

¶23

These petitions are filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶24

The petitioners herein are arrayed as the accused Nos. 1 to 3 in Crime Nos.1571, 1575, 1576, 1579, 1562, 1563, 1572, 1580, 1584, 1586, 1686 of 2017 of Kodungalloor Police Station, Crime Nos. 728, 730, 732, 742, 747, 758, 787, 789, 790, 794, 795 of 2017 of the Kattoor Police Station, Crime Nos.1199, 1200,1205, 1206, 1211, 1212, 1222, 1223 of 2017 of the Mathilakam Police Station, Crime Nos.1047, 1167, 1168, 1169, 1170, 1171 of 2017 of Kodakara Police Station, Crime Nos.1088, 1201, 1250 of 2017 of the Valapad Police Station, Crime Nos.819, 884 of 2017 of the Cherpu Police Station, Crime Nos. 797, 1093, 3172 of 2017 of the Nedunkandom Police Station, Crime Nos.1071, 1137 of 2017

¶25

B.A.No.843/2018 etc.

¶26

-:2:-

¶27

of the Mala Police Station and Crime No.1208 of 2017 of Ollur Police Station. In the above Crimes, they are accused of having committed offence punishable under sections 406 and 420 of the IPC.

¶28

The 1^st petitioner herein is the Managing Director and the petitioners 2 and 3 are the Directors of M/s. Thathwamasi Chits and Investments Pvt. Ltd. The said Company is having its Head Office at North Paravur and have 21 branches all over the State. Its business is mainly concentrated in the Districts of Kollam, Alappuzha, Ernakulam and Thrissur.

¶29

The Company was engaged in the Chit business and the de facto complainants in all the above Crimes are its subscribers. The allegations are pure and simple in all these cases. Money was entrusted with the petitioners by way of chit instalments and the petitioners in violation of such trust misappropriated the property and converted it to their own use. The complainants also have a case that they were induced to part with money with dishonest intent and if it was not for the fraudulent misrepresentation, they would not

¶30

B.A.No.843/2018 etc.

¶31

-:3:-

¶32

have parted with the money. As many as 55 Crimes were registered against the petitioners in various Police Stations as detailed above.

¶33

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners very forcefully urged that the Company is having ownership over substantial items of property and those properties have been attached by some of their customers by instituting civil suits. It is also submitted that this Court by judgment dated 11.12.2017 in B.A.No.8357 of 2017, had considered the contentions of the petitioners and holding that the allegations are essentially of a civil nature, had granted prearrest bail to the petitioners in Crime No.1160 of 2017 of Munambam Police Station. It is further urged that relying on the above order of this Court, Annexure-C to H orders have been passed by the Court of Sessions, Ernakulam, Alappuzha and Kollam. The learned counsel submitted that this Court while passing Annexure-B order had directed the petitioners to deposit a sum of Rs.30,000/- being one half of the amount due to the de facto complainant and if sufficient time is granted, the petitioners will be able to dispose of

¶34

-:4:-

¶35

B.A.No.843/2018 etc.

¶36

their property and pay at least 1/3^rd amount due to the subscribers in all these cases. It is submitted that pursuant to the orders issued by this Court as well as the Court of Sessions, the petitioners had appeared before the investigating officer and they were thoroughly interrogated. In that view of the matter, this is an eminently fit case for invocation of powers under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. is the final submission of the learned counsel.

¶37

The submissions of the learned counsel were strenuously countered by the learned Public Prosecutor. It is submitted that the 2^nd petitioner is the brother of the 1^st petitioner, and the 3^rd petitioner is the wife of the 1^st petitioner. A detailed statement of the amount due to the subscribers in all these cases as per the complaint is also handed over. On a conservative estimate, the total amount allegedly misappropriated by the petitioners from the gullible subscribers comes to about Rs.40 Crores. It is further urged that while considering the application of the petitioners in Crime No.1160 of 2017 of Munambam Police Station which led to the passing of Annexure-B order by this Court, the

¶38

-:5:-

¶39

B.A.No.843/2018 etc.

¶40

prosecution was unable to place on record the quantum of money siphoned off and the gravity of the allegations. In the said case, the amount due to the de facto complainant was only Rs.60,000/- and it was on condition that the petitioners pay a sum of Rs.30000/- that bail was granted. Taking cue from the orders of this Court, the Sessions Court also have followed suit and in some of the orders, the petitioners were not even directed to deposit any money. It is urged that this is not a fit case warranting exercise of powers under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶41

I have anxiously considered the submissions advanced. I take note of the mode in which the petitioners had defrauded the gullible investors and persuaded them to deposit large sums of money in the Company and the mode in which the amounts were siphoned off for their own benefits. I also take note of the quantum of money defrauded by the petitioners thus divesting innocent people of their hard earned money. The impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in a case of this nature of such large magnitude affecting large number of people cannot be

¶42

-:6:-

¶43

B.A.No.843/2018 etc.

¶44

lost sight of. The real possibility of the petitioners fleeing from justice cannot be ignored. It cannot be said that the prosecution is frivolous or that the allegations against the petitioners are purely civil in nature. I am of the view that gross prejudice would be caused for a free, fair and full investigation, if the petitioners are ensconced with the protective umbrella of an order of anticipatory bail. Furthermore, in a case involving economic offences of this magnitude, the larger interest of public and State demands that the discretion be exercised with utmost care and caution. Demand of individual liberty has to be matched with larger interest of public and State. After having considered all the relevant aspects, I agree with the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor that arming the petitioner with an order of pre-arrest bail is likely to derail the investigation. I am of the considered view that granting of an order of anticipatory bail in a case of this nature is unwarranted. These petitions will stand dismissed.

¶45

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners prays that the petitioners be permitted to surrender and directions be

¶46

B.A.No.843/2018 etc.

¶47

-:7:-

¶48

issued to the court below to consider their application for bail. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, if the petitioners surrender before the jurisdictional court and moves an application for bail, the same shall be considered and orders shall be passed on its merits ideally on the same day itself.

¶49

Before parting it is made clear that the observations made above were for the purpose of disposing this application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. While considering an application for regular bail, the Court below shall dispose of the application untramelled by the observations above.

¶50

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., JUDGE

¶51

ps/22/3/18

¶52

//true copy//

¶53

P.S to Judge

T.a.Koshore v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.a.Koshore 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

Praful G.N Vs State of Kerala

Pradeep Kora Vs State of Kerala

Shahil Vs State of Kerala

T.a.Kishore Vs State of Kerala

Praveen Vs State of Kerala

Uma V.S Vs State of Kerala