Dismissed

Satish Kumar S., v. the Station House Officer

Kerala HC14 Dec 2021Bail Appl./6416/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application, petitioners sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. alleging innocence in a cheating case involving M/s Dream Makers Global Pvt Ltd. The court held that investigating the directors' criminal intent was crucial. Granting bail would adversely affect the investigation, making it not a fit case for pre-arrest bail, resulting in dismissal.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail application dismissed; investigation to proceed to determine criminal intention of directors.

Satish Kumar S., Vs the Station House Officer — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 14^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021/23RD AGRAHAYANA, 1943

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 6416 OF 2021

¶6

CRIME NO.646 OF 2020 OF EDAKKAD POLICE STATION, KANNUR

¶7

PETITIONERS:

¶8

1 SATISH KUMAR S., AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.SELVARAJ, NO.1/9A, RAMALINGA NAGAR, 5TH STREET, NEAR PARK, K.K.PUDUR, COIMBATORE, TAMIL NADU - 641 038.

¶9

2 GUNAVATHI A. AGED 38 YEARS, W/O.SATHISH KUMAR, 105, 1ST FLOOR, SIVAJI COLONY, THADAGAM ROAD, COIMBATORE, TAMIL NADU - 641 025.

¶10

BY ADV T.G.RAJENDRAN

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER EDAKKAD POLICE STATION, KANNUR - 670 662.

¶13

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

¶14

3 MANI N., AGED 51 YEARS, S/O NARAYANAN NAMBIAR, BHAGYALAYAM, KOSHORMOOLA, EDAKKAD P.O , KANNUR-670662.*

¶15

*IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL. R3 AS PER ORDER DATED 28.09.2021 IN CRL M.A 1/2021.

¶16

R1-R2 BY SMT.C.SEENA, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶17

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION

¶18

ON 14.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

¶20

B.A.No.6416 of 2021

¶21

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.

¶22

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

¶23

B.A.No. 6416 of 2021

¶24

----------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 14^th day of December, 2021

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

This is an application for anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

¶27

The petitioners are the accused in crime No.646 of 2020 of Edakkad Police Station. The offences alleged are under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C.

¶28

The petitioners would contend that actually they are not the accused, whereas four other persons are the accused in Crime No.646 of 2020. However, the police personnel are threatening that the petitioners would be arrested in connection with the said crime, but they are totally innocent and hence they are compelled to file this application seeking anticipatory bail.

¶29

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶30

The learned counsel for the petitioners would

¶31

¶32

B.A.No.6416 of 2021

¶33

contend that there has absolutely been no allegations or averments in the F.I.R. in order to connect the petitioners in any manner with the alleged crime. The crime was registered with the allegation that accused Nos.1 to 4 persuaded the de facto complainant by offering daily return on the amount of Rs.24,000/- being invested and on such belief the de facto complainant has deposited such an initial deposit and also subsequent deposits totaling to an amount of Rs.2,40,000/-. The accused persons did not make the payment as promised

¶34

and thereby the de facto complainant was cheated.

¶35

Notice was sent to the de facto complainant, who was impleaded as additional 3^rd respondent, but he did not turn up.

¶36

The learned Public Prosecutor has placed on record the report of the Sub Inspector of Police, Edakkad Police Station. In the report of the investigating officer, it is stated that the petitioners are already added as accused Nos.3 and 4 in the crime. The learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that besides the petitioners, the company named M/s Dream

¶37

¶38

B.A.No.6416 of 2021

¶39

Makers Global Pvt.Ltd. has also been made an accused in the crime. It is further reported that the petitioners are accused in Crime No.5 of 2019 registered by the Economic Offence Wing of Coimbatore Police.

¶40

From the report, it is revealed that not only the de facto complainant, but so many other persons are allegedly cheated in the same manner. From the available records, it appears that in the name of the aforementioned company, so many people were cheated and huge amounts were extracted. The investigation is in its initial stage only.

¶41

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that in the absence of any specific allegations against the petitioners, there is no justification in implicating them in the crime and for that reason itself they are entitled to get anticipatory bail.

¶42

When it is alleged that the offence was committed with respect to the transactions in the name of a company, the complicity of its Directors is a matter to be investigated into in detail. Only on collecting enough materials, it will be

¶43

¶44

B.A.No.6416 of 2021

¶45

revealed whether or not the Directors had criminal intention to cheat its customers/clients. If the Directors have such an intention, certainly they are answerable for cheating; despite the fact that the money was collected in the name of the company. At this stage of investigation, if the petitioners' arrest is prevented by granting pre-arrest bail that will adversely affect the investigation. Hence, I am of the view that this is not a fit case where the discretionary relief under

¶46

Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. can be granted. Therefore, the application for anticipatory bail is dismissed.

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE

¶49

dkr

Satish Kumar S., v. the Station House Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish Kumar S., v. the Station House Officer

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

Aboobacker Vs State of Kerala

Jolly Mathew Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Shaheem Vs State of Kerala

Midhulaj Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Shafi Vs State of Kerala

Abijith A.S. Vs State of Kerala