Dismissed

Aja S. Nair v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC16 Aug 2019Bail Appl./5104/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. by the second accused in a financial loan scam case was dismissed. The court held that custodial interrogation is necessary given the potential for further complaints and the risk of witness intimidation, denying anticipatory bail while directing surrender for regular bail consideration.

What did the court decide?

The application for anticipatory bail is dismissed; the petitioner is directed to surrender within ten days for interrogation and subsequent consideration for regular bail by the Magistrate.

Aja S. Nair Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 25TH SRAVANA, 1941

¶5

Bail Appl..No.5104 OF 2019

¶6

CRIME NO.1095/2019 OF Kollam East Police Station , Kollam

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

AJA S. NAIR AGED 28 YEARS D/O.RAJAMANIAMMA, RAJA BHAVAN, THUVAYOOR SOUTH.P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.P.MOHAMED SABAH

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31

¶12

2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM-691001

¶13

**3 ANIL NARAYANAN, S/o.NARAYANAN AGED 48 YEARS, CHIRAKKURA HOUSE PTHUVAYAL KUNNAMPURAM PUTHANKULAM, KOLLAM-691 302. ADDL. R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 26.07.2019 IN CRL.M.A.NO.1/2019.

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

SRI.C.S.HRITHWIK,PP

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.08.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Bail Appl..No.5104 OF 2019

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioner is the second accused in Crime No.1095/2019 of Kollam East Police

¶20

Station registered for the offences

¶21

punishable under Sections 120B and 420 IPC.

¶22

2. The prosecution allegation can be briefly stated thus:-

¶23

The petitioner is the Managing Director of the financial institution namely, Meleppattu Prime Nidhi Ltd. The petitioner and the other accused collected a total amount of Rs.77.00 lakhs from the public on the promise that the company would provide

¶24

Bail Appl..No.5104 OF 2019

¶25

-3-

¶26

loan upto Rs.5 crores. However, the loan as promised was not sanctioned and the money

¶27

collected was also not returned.

¶28

3. The petitioner has filed this application under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶29

4. Heard.

¶30

5. The learned Public Prosecutor has

¶31

opposed the application.

¶32

6. The learned Public Prosecutor has

¶33

submitted that 23 persons have now come forward with their grievance. More persons are likely to come forward with similar allegations against the petitioner. It appears that the matter involved in this case relates to loan scam. Considering the

¶34

Bail Appl..No.5104 OF 2019

¶35

facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for the progress of the investigation of the case. That apart, if the petitioner is granted the relief under Section 438 Cr.P.C., there is likelihood that the petitioner will intimidate and influence the witnesses and thereby tamper with the investigation, exceeding the liberty on bail. In the said circumstances, an order under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioner will not

¶36

Bail Appl..No.5104 OF 2019

¶37

-5-

¶38

be justified in this case.

¶39

In the result, this application stands

¶40

dismissed.

¶41

However, the petitioner is directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer within ten days, if not arrested in the meantime. If the petitioner surrenders before the Investigating Officer on any day before 9 a.m. within ten days as directed above, the Investigating Officer shall interrogate the petitioner and thereafter produce the petitioner before the

¶42

Jurisdictional Magistrate on the same day. If the petitioner filess any application for regular bail on his production before the

¶43

Bail Appl..No.5104 OF 2019

¶44

Jurisdictional Magistrate, the learned Magistrate shall consider and dispose of the application for bail in accordance with law,

¶45

as expeditiously as possible.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE

¶48

STK

¶49

//TRUE COPY//

¶50

//P.A. TO JUDGE//

Aja S. Nair v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aja S. Nair 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rachana.K.v. Vs State of Kerala

Kalla Sathya Appala Naidu Vs State of Kerala

Sakeer Vs State of Kerala

Santhu @ Kalippattom Vs State of Kerala

Sharly.P.S Vs State of Kerala

Aswanth.K Vs State of Kerala