Allowed

Ajeshkumar N.S, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Feb 2022Bail Appl./254/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed an application for anticipatory bail. It held that prima facie it is difficult to conclude the petitioners were responsible for the alleged fraud, noting they are not directors and were roped in on suspicion. Bail was granted subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; petitioners released on bail subject to execution of bond with sureties, appearance before IO, and non-interference with witnesses.

Ajeshkumar N.S, Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 9^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 20TH MAGHA, 1943

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 9784 OF 2021

¶6

CRIME NO.2413 OF 2021 OF THIRUVALLA POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA

¶7

DISTRICT

¶8

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.2 AND 3:

¶9

1 AJESH KUMAR N.S, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.K.R.SADASIVAN, RADHANILAYAM, KAVIYOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶10

2 ROSHINI RAJAN, AGED 46 YEARS, W/O.AJEESHKUMAR.N.S, RADHANILAYAM, KAVIYOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADVS. NIREESH MATHEW NIJU MATHEW VIVEK VENUGOPAL BABU JOSE SEBIN SEBASTIAN GAJENDRA SINGH RAJPUROHIT DEVAN N.R

¶12

RESPONDENT/STATE & DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶13

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

¶14

2 SAHAJAN, AGED 68 YEARS, S/O.VELU VAIDYAN, THOKKANADIYIL HOUSE, NIRANAM.P.O, KADAPRA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-689621. BY SRI. RENJITH (SR.PP)

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.02.2022, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..254/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

BAIL APPL. NOS. 9784 & 254 OF 2022

¶18

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶19

PRESENT

¶20

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

¶21

WEDNESDAY, THE 9^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 20TH MAGHA, 1943

¶22

BAIL APPL. NO. 254 OF 2022

¶23

CRIME NO.2512/2021 OF THIRUVALLA POLICE STATION,

¶24

PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT

¶25

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.2 & 3:

¶26

1 AJESHKUMAR N.S,

¶27

AGED 53 YEARS,

¶28

S/O. K.R. SADASIVAN, RADHANILAYAM, KAVIYOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶29

2 ROSHINI RAJAN, AGED 46 YEARS

¶30

W/O. AJESHKUMAR N.S., RADHANILAYAM, KAVIYOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶31

BY ADV NIREESH MATHEW

¶32

RESPONDENT/STATE & DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶33

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

¶34

2 LATHIKA P.B, AGED 57 YEARS, W/O. PRESANNAKUMAR, 'KRISHNA PRIYA HOUSE', LAKASERRY, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 689 121.

¶35

BY SRI.RENJITH (SR.PP)

¶36

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.02.2022, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..9784/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶37

¶38

BAIL APPL. NOS. 9784 & 254 OF 2022

¶39

ORDER

¶40

This is an application for anticipatory bail.

¶41

Petitioners in these cases are accused Nos.2 and 3 in Crime 2413 of 2021 and 2512 of 2021 (both of Thiruvalla Police Station, Pathanamthitta District) alleging commissions of offences under Sections 409 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation against the petitioners in both these cases is that they are involved with a running of a chit fund business namely, SN Chits Funds and Bankers, of which the 1^st accused is the Managing Director. It is alleged that money had been obtained from several depositors, including the de-facto complainants in the crimes referred to above after offering exorbitant interest and thereafter, there was failure to repay the amounts.

¶42

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in these cases would submit that the petitioners are husband and wife. It is submitted that the 1^st accused in the case is the father of the 1^st petitioner and that the petitioners had been roped in only on account of a suspicion that they are Directors and they are also involved in the running of the business of the chit fund company. It is submitted that the petitioners are not Directors of

¶43

¶44

BAIL APPL. NOS. 9784 & 254 OF 2022

¶45

SN Chits Funds and Bankers. Reference is made to the company master data produced along with these bail applications in this regard. It is submitted that the petitioners were Directors only for a period prior to 2013 and the allegations pertain to a period after that date. It is submitted that the petitioners are running a restaurant and they are in no way connected with the business of SN Chits Funds and Bankers. Reference is made to the First Information Statement in Crime No.2413 of 2021 to point out that the petitioners have been roped in only on the basis of some suspicion that they are also involved in the running of the business.

¶46

The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submits that even if it is assumed that the petitioners are not directly involved in the running of the business, the investigation conducted thus far has revealed that the 1^st accused in the case has deposited substantial amounts into the accounts of the petitioners in these cases. It is submitted that a thorough investigation is required to find out as to whether this money was diverted from the business of SN Chits Funds and Bankers. It is submitted that for the same, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is absolutely essential. It is submitted that the petitioners are not entitled to anticipatory bail.

¶47

¶48

BAIL APPL. NOS. 9784 & 254 OF 2022

¶49

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the materials placed on record, it is prima facie difficult to conclude that that the petitioners are responsible in any manner for any fraud committed by SN Chits Funds and Bankers. The company master data shows that the petitioners are not Directors of that company. Further, even if certain amounts have been paid by the 1^st accused into the accounts of the petitioners, that by itself cannot make the petitioners liable, unless it can be shown that the amounts were purposefully diverted from the business of SN Chits Funds and Bankers. This is a matter to be proved in investigation / trial. I am, therefore, of the view that the petitioners are entitled to an order for anticipatory b ail.

¶50

6 . In the result, this application is allowed and it is directed that the petitioners shall be released on bail, in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime Nos.2413 of 2021 and 2512 of 2021 both of Thiruvalla Police Station, Pathanamthitta District, subject to the following conditions:

¶51

(i) Petitioners shall execute separate bonds in respect of each of the cases for sums of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the

¶52

¶53

BAIL APPL. NOS. 9784 & 254 OF 2022

¶54

Jurisdictional Court in each of the cases;

¶55

(ii) Petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer in Crime Nos.2413 of 2021 and 2512 of 2021 both of Thiruvalla Police Station, Pathanamthitta District, whenever called upon to do so;

¶56

(iii) Petitioners shall not attempt to interfere with the investigation or to influence or intimidate the de-facto complainants or any witness in Crime Nos.2413 of 2021 and 2512 of 2021 both of Thiruvalla Police Station, Pathanamthitta District;

¶57

(iv) Petitioners shall not involve in any other crime while on bail.

¶58

If any of the aforesaid conditions are violated, the investigating officer in Crime Nos.2413 of 2021 and 2512 of 2021 both of Thiruvalla Police Station, Pathanamthitta District, may file an application before the jurisdictional court, for cancel lation of bail. Any observation made in this order is only for the purpose of considering the entitlement of the petitioners for bail and shall not be treated as a finding by this Court on any point.

¶59

Sd/- GOPINATH P. JUDGE

¶60

Ajeshkumar N.S, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajeshkumar N.S, 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

Shamsudeen Vs State of Kerala

Gopalakrishnan, Vs State of Kerala

Rinshad, Vs State of Kerala

Midhun K.M. Vs State of Kerala

Vishnu Ambili Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Padhmanabhan Vs State of Kerala