Dismissed

Pratheesh Kumar T.Pillai v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Oct 2019Bail Appl./5670/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala rejected pre-arrest bail applications for two accused involved in multiple cheating cases. The court denied relief to the primary operator due to prima facie fraudulent intent but granted bail with conditions to the father after finding him unconnected to the acts and requiring interrogation of the primary accused first.

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail denied to primary applicant; father directed for interrogation and granted bail if arrest proposed with bond of Rs.50,000.

Pratheesh Kumar T.Pillai 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 RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 23RD ASWINA, 1941

¶5

Bail Appl..No.5418 OF 2019

¶6

(AGAINST THE CRIME NO.1435/2018 OF KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT)

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2:

¶8

PRATHEESH KUMAR T.PILLAI, AGED 41 YEARS S/O. THANKAPPAN, THOTTATHIL VEEDU, KULAKKADA, KUNDRA, KOLLAM.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.RASHEED C.NOORANAD SMT.BINDU GOPINATH

¶10

RESPONDENTS/STATE/RESPOPDENT:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.

¶12

2 ADDL.R2 SAMBASIVAN, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O SURENDRAN, IMPORT MANAGER, M/S SREELAKSHMI CASHEW COMPANY, KOLLAM, RESIDING AT BHAGYA NIVAS, NEAR SIDHATHA CENTRAL SCHOOL, PALLIMON CHERRY, CHATHANNUR, KOLLAM.

¶13

IS IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL R2 AS PER THE ORDER DATED 7.8.2019 IN CRL.MA NO.1/2019 IN B.A.NO.5418/2019.

¶14

R2 BY ADV. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.) R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.SUDHINKUMAR R2 BY ADV. SRI.S.K.ADHITHYAN R2 BY ADV. SRI.SABU PULLAN R1 BY SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.B.JAYASURYA

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.10.2019, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..5419/2019, 5670/2019, 6063/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Bail Appl..5418, 5419, 5670 & 6063 OF 2019

¶17

..2..

¶18

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶19

PRESENT

¶20

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶21

TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 23RD ASWINA, 1941

¶22

Bail Appl..No.5419 OF 2019

¶23

(AGAINST THE CRIME NO.1759/2018 OF PUNALOOR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM RURAL)

¶24

PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED:

¶25

PRATHEESH KUMAR T.PILLAI, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.THANKAPPANN, THOTTATHIL VEEDU, KULAKKADA, KUNDARA, KOLLAM.

¶26

BY ADVS. SRI.RASHEED C.NOORANAD SMT.BINDU GOPINATH

¶27

RESPONDENTS/STATE/RESPONDENT:

¶28

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.

¶29

2 ADDL.R2 N.SATHEESH KUMAR, S/O NARAYANAN, 56 YEARS, MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S KUMAR CASHEW COMPANY, KOLLAM, RESIDING AT ROHINIYIL, KAKKODU, AIKKARAKONAM, PUNALUR, KOLLAM.

¶30

IS IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL R2 AS PER THE ORDER DATED 7.8.2019 IN CRL.MA NO.1/2019 IN B.A.NO.5419/2019.

¶31

R2 BY ADV. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.) R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) R2 BY ADV. SRI.S.VIBHEESHANAN R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.SUDHINKUMAR R2 BY ADV. SRI.S.K.ADHITHYAN R2 BY ADV. SRI.SABU PULLAN

¶32

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAMESH CHAND

¶33

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.10.2019, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..5418/2019, 5670/2019, 6063/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶34

Bail Appl..5418, 5419, 5670 & 6063 OF 2019

¶35

..3..

¶36

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶37

PRESENT

¶38

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶39

TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 23RD ASWINA, 1941

¶40

Bail Appl..No.5670 OF 2019

¶41

(AGAINST THE CRIME NO.290 CB/KLM/PTA/R/2019 OF CRIME BRANCH, KOLLAM - CRIME NO.655/2018 OF KUNDRA POLICE STATION)

¶42

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.2 AND 3:

¶43

1 PRATHEESH KUMAR T.PILLAI, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O. THANKAPPAN, THOTTATHIL VEEDU, KULAKKADA, KUNDRA, KOLLAM.

¶44

2 THANKAPPAN, AGED 68 YEARS, S/O. LATE GOVINDA PILLA, THOTTATHIL VEEDU, KULAKKADA, KUNDRA, KOLLAM.

¶45

BY ADVS. SRI.RASHEED C.NOORANAD SMT.M.N.ANITHA

¶46

RESPONDENTS/STATE/RESPONDENT:

¶47

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, 682031.

¶48

2 ADDL.R2 JOSE SAMUVEL. S/O SAMUVEL, 75 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, THANKAM CASHEW FACTORY, KOLLAM, RESIDING AT JOSE BHAVAN, NEAR ANAYADI BRIDGE, NADUVILMURI, SOORANAD, KOLLAM.

¶49

IS IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL R2 AS PER ORDER DATED 22.8.2019 IN CRL.MA NO.01/2019.

¶50

R2 BY ADV. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.) R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) R2 BY ADV. SRI.S.VIBHEESHANAN R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.SUDHINKUMAR R2 BY ADV. SRI.S.K.ADHITHYAN R2 BY ADV. SRI.SABU PULLAN

¶51

R1 BY SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.B.JAYASURYA

¶52

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.10.2019, ALONG WITH Bail Appl. Nos.5418/2019, 5419/2019, 6063/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶53

Bail Appl..5418, 5419, 5670 & 6063 OF 2019

¶54

..4..

¶55

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶56

PRESENT

¶57

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶58

TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 23RD ASWINA, 1941

¶59

Bail Appl..No.6063 OF 2019

¶60

(AGAINST THE CRIME NO.340/CB/KLM/PTA/R/2019 OF CRIME BRANCH, KOLLAM-CRIME NO.2023/2018 OF SOORANADU POLICE STATION)

¶61

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 AND 2:

¶62

1 PRATHEESH KUMAR T.PILLAI, AGED 41 YEARS S/O. THANKAPPAN, THOTTATHIL VEEDU, KULAKKADA, KUNDRA, KOLLAM.

¶63

2 THANKAPPAN, AGED 68 YEARS S/O. LATE GOVINDA PILLA, THOTTATHIL VEEDU, KULAKKADA, KUNDRA, KOLLAM.

¶64

BY ADVS. SRI.RASHEED C.NOORANAD SMT.M.N.ANITHA SMT.BINDU GOPINATH

¶65

RESPONDENTS:

¶66

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR , HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031. 2 JOHNSON, PROPRIETOR, M/S. GLORY CASHEW FACTORY, SOORANAD, KOLLAM, RESIDING AT PAZHOOR HOUSE, NADUVILA MURI, SOORANAD NORTH, SOORANAD P.O., KOLLAM-691001.

¶67

R2 BY ADV. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.) R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) R2 BY ADV. SRI.S.VIBHEESHANAN R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.SUDHINKUMAR R2 BY ADV. SRI.S.K.ADHITHYAN R2 BY ADV. SRI.SABU PULLAN

¶68

OTHER PRESENT:

¶69

SRI.RAMESH CHAND PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶70

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.10.2019, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..5418/2019, Bail Appl..5419/2019, Bail Appl..5670/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶71

Bail Appl..5418, 5419, 5670 & 6063 OF 2019

¶72

..5..

¶73

ORDER

¶74

These applications are filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.

¶75

The 1^st applicant in these applications is the Managing Partner of

¶76

M/s. Nivin Enterprises, a firm engaged in the Trading of various commodities. The 2^nd applicant in B.A.Nos.5670 of 2019 and 6063 of 2019 is his father. They have been arrayed as accused in four separate crimes registered at various

¶77

Police Stations in Kollam District. The details are as follows:

¶78

Crime No.	Police Station	Re-registered at Kollam Crime Branch as
1435 of 2018	Kollam East	-
1759 of 2018	Punalur	-
2023 of 2018	Sooranadu	340/CB/KLM/PTA/R/2019
655 of 2018	Kundra	290/CB/KLM/PTA/R/2019

¶79

In all these cases, the allegations are more or less identical. It is

¶80

alleged that the 1^st applicant approached the respective complainants and offered to import raw cashew nuts from Dew Point Engineers (T) Ltd., Tanzania and induced them to part with huge sums of money. It is alleged that the applicant after getting the money transferred to his account failed to supply the raw cashew nuts as agreed. Based on the complaints, crimes were registered.

¶81

Bail Appl..5418, 5419, 5670 & 6063 OF 2019

¶82

..6..

¶83

In Crime No.1435 of 2018, the 1^st applicant is alleged to have fraudulently misappropriated a sum of USD 2,14,000; a sum of Rs.1.03 Crores in Crime No.1759 of 2018 of the Punaloor Police Station; a sum of Rs.6.94 Crores in Crime No.655 of 2018 of the Kundra Police Station and a sum of Rs.87.78 lakhs in Crime No.2023 of 2018 of the Sooranadu Police Station. According to the prosecution, the applicant has deceived unsuspecting processors of raw cashew in the State of Kerala and swindled massive amounts of money and committed the offence of cheating.

¶84

4. Sri.C.Rasheed, the learned counsel appearing for the applicants,

¶85

submitted that the 1^st applicant as the Managing Partner of M/s. Nivin Enterprises had acted only as a mediator in the transaction between the de facto complainants in the respective cases and the supplier. The supplier of the cashew was a company by name “Dew Point Engineers (T) Ltd.”, having its registered office at Tanzania and its Director was a person of Indian origin by name, “Rajiv Viswananthan Nair”. According to the learned counsel, the 1^st applicant had blindly believed the words of Sri. Rajiv and acted as a broker. The amount which was transferred to the account of the 1^st applicant was retransferred to the account of Dew Point. He would further contend that when Rajiv met with loss in the business, he committed suicide leaving the buyers and

¶86

Bail Appl..5418, 5419, 5670 & 6063 OF 2019

¶87

..7..

¶88

the applicants in the lurch. To substantiate the fact that Rajiv had committed suicide, the learned counsel refers to a letter issued by Zonal Crime Officer, Special Zone, Dar E. Salam. According to the learned counsel, a purely civil dispute between the parties arising from non supply of goods was transformed into a criminal offence by the respective complainants. Finally, it is submitted that the father of the 1^st applicant has nothing to do with the business conducted by him.

¶89

The learned Senior Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer. It is submitted that some of the complainants had approached this Court and based on directions issued by this Court, investigation was transferred to the Crime Branch. It is submitted that the investigation is still in the early stages and the contention of the applicants that the money was transferred to Sri.Rajiv is not true. It is submitted that by giving false assurances knowing it to be false, the applicants have intentionally deceived the respective complainants. It is pointed out that the 2^nd applicant in B.A.No.6063 of 2019 is no longer an accused as he has been removed from the array of the accused.

¶90

In the course of proceedings, the de facto complainants in the respective cases have filed applications to get themselves impleaded. The said applications were allowed and they were also permitted to advance arguments.

¶91

Bail Appl..5418, 5419, 5670 & 6063 OF 2019

¶92

..8..

¶93

Dr.K.P.Satheesan, the learned Senior counsel, submitted that the complainants were made to believe that the 1^st applicant is also a Director of the supplier and it was believing his words that the amounts were transferred to his account. Only an effective investigation will unravel the manner in which the victims were defrauded, submits the learned Senior counsel.

¶94

I have considered the submissions advanced and have perused the records, which are made available by the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. Having considered the facts and circumstances, it appears that huge sums of money were, in fact, transferred to the account of the 1^st applicant by the respective complainants. Very lucrative pricing was offered by the 1^st applicant to seal the contract and after receiving the money, he has failed to supply the goods. At this stage, it is not possible to accept the submission of the learned counsel that the dispute is purely civil in nature. Prima facie, there are materials to suggest that the accused had fraudulent and dishonest intention at the inception itself and in that view of the matter, it would not be proper for this Court to interfere with the investigation. However, it appears that the father of the 1^st applicant, who is the 2^nd applicant in B.A. Nos. 5670 of 2019 and 6063 of 2019 had no role to play in the acts committed by his son. It appears that in Crime No.340/CB/KLM/PTA/R/2019, Sri.Thankappan Pillai has already been

¶95

Bail Appl..5418, 5419, 5670 & 6063 OF 2019

¶96

..9..

¶97

removed from the array of the accused. However, he is still arrayed as the 3^rd accused in Crime No.290/CB/KLM/PTA/R/2019. In the facts and circumstances, the custodial interrogation of the 2^nd applicant in B.A.No.5670 of 2019 is not required for an effective investigation. I am not inclined to grant an order of pre-arrest bail to the applicant in B.A.Nos.5419/2019, 5418/2019, and the 1^st applicant in B.A.Nos.6063/2019 and 5670 /2019. He shall surrender before the Investigating officer forthwith and co-operate with the investigation. After interrogation, he shall be produced before the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction where he may move for bail. If an application for regular bail is preferred, the same shall be considered and orders shall be passed expeditiously and on its merits.

¶98

The 2^nd applicant in B.A. No.5670 of 2019 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 his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum. The above order shall be subject to the following conditions:

¶99

i) The applicant shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Saturdays between 10 a.m. and 11 a.m., for two months or till final report is filed, whichever is earlier.

¶100

Bail Appl..5418, 5419, 5670 & 6063 OF 2019

¶101

..10..

¶102

ii) He shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/ her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer.

¶103

iii) He shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.

¶104

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.

¶105

SD/-

¶106

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE

¶107

Bka/01.10.2019

¶108

//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE

Pratheesh Kumar T.Pillai v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pratheesh Kumar T.Pillai 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

Haris Vs the State of Kerala

Sabir Salim, Vs State of Kerala

Varkey Vs State of Kerala

Subin, Vs the State of Kerala

Salman Vs the State of Kerala

Pratheesh Kumar.T.Pillai Vs State of Kerala