Allowed

Saharsh B. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Dec 2019Bail Appl./8757/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application concerned two accused directed of a fraudulent business venture involving investor losses. The High Court allowed the bail applications, granting release on bond with sureties and subject to specific conditions including regular appearance and non-influence of witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on bond for Rs.5,00,000 with two solvent sureties each, subject to specified conditions.

Saharsh B. Vs State of Kerala — Company and Corporate | 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 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941

¶5

Bail Appl..No.8757 OF 2019

¶6

CRIME NO.368/CBCUIVTVM/2018 OF CRIME BRANCH CENTRAL UNIT-4, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶7

PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED:

¶8

SAHARSH B. AGED 50 YEARS S/O.BHASKARAN, ZIGMA, SIVA RAM GARDENS, KODUNGANNOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 013.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.SADCHITH.P.KURUP

¶10

RESPONDENTS/STATE:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

¶12

2 THE DEPUTY POLICE SUPERINTENDENT, CRIME BRANCH CENTRAL UNIT-4, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 008.

¶13

3 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, FORT POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 023.

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.12.2019, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..8784/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

B.A.Nos.8757 & 8784 OF 2019

¶16

¶17

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶18

PRESENT

¶19

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶20

TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941

¶21

Bail Appl..No.8784 OF 2019

¶22

CRIME NO.369/CBCUIVTVM/2018 OF CRIME BRANCH CENTRAL UNIT-4, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ,

¶23

PETITIONER/3RD ACCUSED:

¶24

SAHARSH B., AGED 50 YEARS S/O BHASKARAN, ZIGMA, SIVA RAM GARDENS, KODUNGANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 013.

¶25

BY ADV. SRI.SADCHITH.P.KURUP

¶26

RESPONDENTS/STATE:

¶27

1 STATE OF KERALA, THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,

¶28

ERNAKULAM -682 031.

¶29

¶30

THE DEPUTY POLICE SUPERINTENDENT,

¶31

CRIME BRANCH CENTRAL UNIT - 4, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 008.

¶32

3 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, FORT POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,

¶33

PIN - 695 023.

¶34

SRI SAJJU S SR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶35

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.12.2019, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..8757/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶36

B.A.Nos.8757 & 8784 OF 2019

¶37

¶38

ORDER

¶39

Instant applications have been preferred under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.

¶40

The applicant is one of the Directors of M/s.Cissil Retail Management Private Ltd. The said company was formed to carry out retail business by starting Hyper-markets, Super-markets etc. in the trade name “Ente Kada”. Various investors were persuaded to invest money and they were told that the shop rooms would be taken on lease by the company and the employees would also be appointed by them. They were assured good profit from the business. Believing the words of the applicant and others, several persons came forward and invested large sums of money. However, the business did not go forward as originally envisaged. It met with road blocks and finally, the persons, who invested in the business, lost their money. Numerous complaints were lodged in various Police Stations in the State. The informant in one of those cases approached this Court and filed W.P.(C) No.1937 of 2017 and this Court ordered consolidation of all the cases and the Crime Branch was ordered to investigate, by order dated 31.10.2018. By order dated 05.11.2018, the entire cases were made over to the Crime Branch.

¶41

B.A.Nos.8757 & 8784 OF 2019

¶42

¶43

The learned Counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that

¶44

the intention of the Directors, while setting up the business was not to defraud the investors. However, due to reasons beyond their control, the business nose dived. The money which was invested by the persons were used to purchase stocks and to develop the business. However, when the business came to a standstill, the stocks as well as computers were taken away by the investors and their employees and the Company was left in the lurch. It is further submitted that the company lost huge sums of money and one of the creditors have already approached the National Company Law Tribunal at Chennai. He would further contend that the applicant was arrested in Crime No.2166 of 2016 of Fort Police Station on 03.10.2019 and thereafter, his arrest was recorded in the rest of the cases. He would also point out that accused Nos.1 and 2 have been granted an order of prearrest bail by this Court by Annexure-A4 and A5 orders.

¶45

I have heard Sri. Sajju, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor submitted that on a conservative estimate, the loss caused to the investors have been pegged at about Rs.29 Crores. He however submits that this Court by order dated 11.11.2019 had granted bail to the applicant in connected cases taking note of the fact that he has been undergoing incarceration from 5.10.2019 onwards. In the instant case, his arrest was recorded on 31.10.2019 is the submission.

¶46

B.A.Nos.8757 & 8784 OF 2019

¶47

¶48

I have considered the submissions advanced and have perused the records. Having considered all the relevant facts, the period of detention undergone and the stage of investigation, I am of the view that the applicant can now be enlarged on bail on conditions.

¶49

In the result, these applications will stand allowed. The applicant in each of these cases shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction. The jurisdictional Magistrate may not insist for production of independent sureties in all these cases. However, it shall be subject to the following conditions:

¶50

(a) The applicant shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Saturdays between 10 a.m. and 1 p.m., for a period of two months or till the final report is laid, whichever is earlier.

¶51

(b) He shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall he tamper with the evidence.

¶52

¶53

(d) He shall surrender his passport before the court below or if he does not have one, he shall file an affidavit to that effect within five days of his release. Application for release of the passport, if any, shall be considered by the Trial court at the appropriate stage.

¶54

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any,

¶55

B.A.Nos.8757 & 8784 OF 2019

¶56

¶57

and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.

¶58

Sd/-

¶59

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶60

JUDGE

¶61

IAP

Saharsh B. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saharsh B. 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

Vinod Kumar E Vs State of Kerala

Vinod Kumar E Vs State of Kerala

Abdulla.a.R Vs State of Kerala

M/S.Va Tech Wabag Limited, Vs Kerala Water Authority

Pookoya.C Vs Union Territory of Lakshadweep

Sholilal.D.R., Vs State of Kerala