Allowed

C.G Balachandran Pillai v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Jul 2023Bail Appl./2812/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC. The petitioner, a divisional manager deemed a 12th accused in a financial fraud case, was released subject to strict conditions including surrender for interrogation, bonding, cooperation, and restrictions on movement and communication with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed subject to conditions of surrender for interrogation, bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with sureties, cooperation with investigation, and specific restrictions on movement and communicat

C.G Balachandran Pillai Vs State of Kerala — Corruption | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 4^TH DAY OF JULY 2023 / 13TH ASHADHA, 1945

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 2812 OF 2023 Crime No. 281/2023 of Punaloor Police Station

¶6

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO 12:

¶7

C.G BALACHANDRAN PILLAI AGED 65 YEARS S/O LATE GANGADHARAN PILLAI N., DIVISIONAL MANAGER, K- CHERY CHITS PVT LTD, HEAD OFFICE PUNALOOR, KOLLAM, RESIDING AT CHANGAVILAYIL VEEDU, NJARAKKADU, RANDALUMMOODU, THALAVOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT,, PIN - 691508 BY ADVS. K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN PINKU MARIAM JOSE ANIL KUMAR T.P.

¶8

RESPONDENT/STATE AND COMPLAINANT:

¶9

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE PUNALOOR POLICE STATION, PUNALOOR , KOLLAM RURAL., PIN - 691305

¶10

BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶11

OTHER PRESENT:

¶12

ADV SREEJA V -SR PP

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.07.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

B.A No. 2812 of 2023

O R D E R

This is an application filed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking anticipatory bail.

¶18

2 . The petitioner is the 12 th accused in Crime No. 281/2023 of Punaloor Police Station. The offences alleged against the petitioner and the other accused are punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 3, 4, 5, 21B, 23 and 25 of the BUDS Act.

¶19

3 . The prosecution case is that, the accused persons, while conducting a financial institution under the name and style Kechery Enterprises have collected huge amounts from the public by offering returns with high rate of interest and later they failed to pay the returns and also to refund the said amount. A complaint was submitted in such circumstances and as the petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with the investigation of the said case, this application for anticipatory bail is submitted.

¶20

¶21

B.A No. 2812 of 2023

¶22

4 . Heard, Sri. K.S Hariharaputhran, the learned counsel

¶23

appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Seetha S, the learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State.

¶24

5 . The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is only a paid employee of the said establishment, and he was not having any absolute control over the management of the funds of the said establishment. The such control was being exercised by the 1 st accused and the other directors of the said company. It is pointed out that, the 1 st accused is already arrested and he is under judicial detention. The petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation and shall abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court.

¶25

6 . On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposes the aforesaid application by pointing out that, several cases are pending against the said establishment and the matter is being investigated. As far as the petitioner is concerned, he used to collect the amounts from the general public in his capacity as the Manager. In such circumstances, dismissal of the application was sought.

¶26

¶27

B.A No. 2812 of 2023

¶28

7 . I have gone through the records. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner was only a paid employee and working as the Manager of the said establishment. Evidently, the affairs of the establishment was being looked after by the 1 st accused and he is already under detention. When considering the limited role of the petitioner, being a paid employee, I am of the view that, interest of justice would be served, if the cooperation of the petitioner with the investigation is ensured.

¶29

In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any necessity of custodial interrogation of the petitioner. Accordingly, this application is allowed on the following conditions:-

¶30

i ) The petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer, within a period of two weeks from today, for subjecting himself for interrogation.

¶31

ii ) After interrogation, the petitioner shall be released on bail on the very same day of surrender upon the petitioner executing a bond for Rs 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties each for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer

¶32

¶33

B.A No. 2812 of 2023

¶34

iii) The petitioner shall fully co-operate with the investigation, including subjecting himself to the deemed police custody for the purpose of recovery, if any, as and when demanded.

¶35

iv) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer between 10.00 a.m and 11.00 a.m every Saturday until the filing of the final report.

¶36

v ) The petitioner shall also appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required by him.

¶37

vi) The petitioner shall not commit any offence of similar nature while on bail.

¶38

vii) The petitioner shall not make any attempt to contact any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or through any other person, or any other way try to tamper with the evidence or influence any witnesses or other persons related to the investigation.

¶39

viii) The petitioner shall not leave India without the permission of the Jurisdictional Court.

¶40

¶41

B.A No. 2812 of 2023

¶42

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

Sd/-

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A

JUDGE

rpk

C.G Balachandran Pillai v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.G Balachandran 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

Shajahan Vs the State of Kerala

Anoop K.S., Vs State of Kerala

Siju Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Sujimon@Saddam Vs State of Kerala

Shihab Vs State of Kerala

T.H.Riyas Vs State of Kerala