Dismissed

Somarajan M.R v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC29 Jan 2024Bail Appl./10948/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed bail applications filed by directors and shareholders of a company implicated in a large-scale cheating conspiracy involving the misappropriation of crores of rupees, holding that their arrest and interrogation are essential for effective investigation.

What did the court decide?

Bail applications dismissed; Registry directed to forward order to DGP for ensuring effective investigation.

Somarajan M.R Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 9TH MAGHA, 1945

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 10948 OF 2023

¶6

CRIME NO.206/2023 OF TOWN EAST POLICE STATION, THRISSUR PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.2 & 3:

¶7

1SOMARAJAN M.R
AGED 73 YEARS
SON OF NARAYANA PANICKAR , 5B4, ABM TOWERS KADAVANTHRA
DESOM, ELAMKULAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNOOR THALUK, ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 682020
2LAKSHMI DEVI
AGED 68 YEARS
W/O.SOMARAJAN 5B4, ABM TOWERS KADAVANTHRA DESOM,
ELAMKULAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNOOR THALUK, ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 682020

¶8

BY ADV M.J.POLLY

¶9

RESPONDENTS/STATE:

¶10

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

¶11

*ADDL.R2 IMPLEADED

¶12

ADDL.R2GILBERT LOURDURAJ JAMES, AGED 43 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF 16, VIVEKANANDA NAGAR, COIMBATORE - 641005
*ADDL.R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN CRL.M.A.NO.1/2023
IN B.A.NO.10948 OF 2023.
R1 BY SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K DENNY DEVASSY
ADDL.R2 BY ADVS.
THOMAS J ANAKKALLUNKAL
ANUPA ANNA JOSE KANDOTH
SNEHA ELSA JOSEPH
JAYARAMAN S.

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ALONG WITH
B.A.NO.10952 OF 2023 ON 29.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

BAIL APPL. NOS.10948

¶15

& 10952 OF 2023 2

¶16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶17

PRESENT

¶18

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN

¶19

MONDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 9TH MAGHA, 1945
BAIL APPL. NO. 10952 OF 2023

¶20

CRIME NO.196/2023 OF TOWN EAST POLICE STATION, THRISSUR

¶21

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.2 & 3:

¶22

1MADHU M.V
AGED 62 YEARS
S/O VASU PILLA , ANUGRAHA- AMMA NAGAR HOUSE NO. 18,
MEPPARATH HOUSE, THRIPPOONITHARA DESOM , NADAMA VILLAGE,
KANAYANNOOR THALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682020

¶23

2SHEEBA. K
AGED 58 YEARS
W/O MADHU M.V, ANUGRAHA- AMMA NAGAR HOUSE NO. 18,
MEPPARATH HOUSE, THRIPPOONITHARA DESOM, NADAMA VILLAGE,
KANAYANNOOR THALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682020

¶24

BY ADV M.J.POLLY

¶25

RESPONDENTS/STATE:

¶26

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

¶27

*ADDL.R2 IMPLEADED

¶28

ADDL.R2GILBERT LOURDURAJ JAMES,AGED 43 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF 16, VIVEKANANDA NAGAR, COIMBATORE - 641005
*ADDL.R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN CRL.M.A.NO.1/2023
IN B.A.NO.10952 OF 2023.

¶29

R1 BY SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.DENNY DEVASSY
ADDL.R2 BY ADVS.
THOMAS J ANAKKALLUNKAL
JAYARAMAN S.
ANUPA ANNA JOSE KANDOTH
SNEHA ELSA JOSEPH

¶30

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ALONG WITH
B.A.NO.10948 OF 2023 ON 29.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶31

BAIL APPL. NOS.10948

¶32

& 10952 OF 2023 3

¶33

COMMON ORDER

¶34

Dated this the 29^th day of January, 2024

¶35

Accused Nos.2 and 3 in Crime Nos.196/2023 and 206/2023 of Town East Police Station, Thrissur, seek the relief of anticipatory bail in these petitions.

¶36

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the

¶37

learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appeared for the de facto complainant to resist the petitions.

¶38

The prosecution case in Crime No.206/2023 is that, accused Nos. 1 to 5 and 8 to 10, with mala fide intention to cheat the complainant, hatched criminal conspiracy at the residence of the 1^st accused and in furtherance of the said conspiracy, A1 introduced A2 and A3 to the complainant as the Directors of M/s.S H Rubbers, engaged in Latex Exporting and produced fake documents, such as Purchase orders and Letter of Credit etc., to convince the complainant about the business of the firm and also persuaded that the fund from bank has been pending, and thereby, induced the complainant to give the

¶39

BAIL APPL. NOS.10948

¶40

& 10952 OF 2023 4

¶41

amount required for the business with fake promise as to return the amount with profit and thus, obtained an amount of Rs. 2.22 Crore from the complainant through the Bank account of the firms M/s.Primero Global Fin Corp CBE Coimbatore and I shara Park Pvt.(Ltd) owned by the complainant to the bank accounts of A2 and A3 and A6 and A7 i.e., the accused firms named M/s.JM Trade Link and M/s.Quarous Technologies run by A1, A4, A5, A8, A9, and A10 and thereafter, the accused persons cheated the complainant by not returning the fund received from the complainant with or without profit or interest etc., Accordingly, the Assistant Police Commissioner, C Branch, Thrissur City, registered this crime, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 120B, 420, 465, 468 and 471 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶42

In Crime No.196/2023, the allegation is similar and the amount involved is Rs.55 Lakh and accordingly, the above offences alleged to be committed by the accused in the said crime also.

¶43

Earlier, accused Nos.8 to 10 in Crime No.206/2023

¶44

BAIL APPL. NOS.10948

¶45

& 10952 OF 2023 5

¶46

and accused Nos.7 to 9 in Crime No.205/2023 filed anticipatory bail applications viz., B.A.Nos.876 and 886 of 2023 and this Court dismissed the same. Paragraph Nos.5 to 9 of the said order, are extracted hereunder:

¶47

“5. While canvassing anticipatory bail to the petitioners, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent. Accused 1 and 3 are Directors of Quarous Technologies Private Ltd. (got arrayed as 6^th accused in Crime No.206/2023 and 7^th accused in Crime No.205/2023), which is a website and application development company incorporated in the year 2018, having its registered office in Thrissur. The 2^nd petitioner is a share holder. The petitioners developed a mobile application "Zoopy.live' through which the users could play a game `Movie Premier League'. Further the users could participate in the quiz like game and earn money. Popularity of the game increased. Many high profile persons, including celebrities, approached the petitioners with offer to invest huge amount in the said business. At this juncture, the 1^st accused approached the petitioners and assured to invest for the expansion and development of the above mobile application and he lied that he had close

¶48

BAIL APPL. NOS.10948

¶49

& 10952 OF 2023 6

¶50

connection with film stars and he would induce persons to the business. Accordingly, believing the 1^st accused, 33% of the share of the company was allotted to the 1^st accused. The 1^st accused initially invested Rs.60 lakh in the company and he agreed to invest Rs.10 crore in total. Thus the 1^st accused acted as the CEO of the company and managed the entire affairs. But thereafter the 1^st accused, who dealt with the company matters, failed to provide bank statements regarding the 3 accounts of the company and the 1^st accused acted against the interest of the company. It is submitted further that the defacto complainant in Crime No.206/2021 deposited Rs.45 lakh in the account of the company and immediately on deposit, the same was transferred by the 1^st accused in his personal account. The sum and substance of the argument made by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the entire amount of money was dealt and misappropriated by the 1^st accused and the petitioners have no role in this crime. He also submitted that the 1^st accused was granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court in all crimes, though his complicity is much more than that of the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners are also liable to be released on bail and they are ready

¶51

BAIL APPL. NOS.10948

¶52

& 10952 OF 2023 7

¶53

to co-operate with the investigation.

¶54

6. Whereas the learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for the defacto complainant strongly opposed bail and submitted that the petitioners herein are the respective Directors of the company and accused 1 to 9, after hatching conspiracy, collected deposits to the tune of Rs.1.94 crores (in Crime No.205/2023) and Rs.2.2 crores (in Crime No.206/2023) and thereafter the entire money was misappropriated. Since the transactions include crores of rupees, arrest, custodial interrogation and details regarding the way in which the money was dealt with, are essential part of the investigation and in such a case relief of anticipatory bail would stall the investigation.

¶55

7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the defacto complainant that the 1^st accused is the CEO of the company, appointed by petitioners 1 and 2. Further it is submitted that though the 1^st accused was granted anticipatory bail in 5 cases, the implementation of those orders being stayed by this Court, vide order dated 02.03.2023 in Crl.M.C.Nos. 1779/2023, 1793/2023, 1794/2023, 1797 and 1806/2023, when this Court appraised the case of the defacto complainant at the time of admission of

¶56

BAIL APPL. NOS.10948

¶57

& 10952 OF 2023 8

¶58

the above Crl.M.Cs. Copies of the said stay orders have been placed by the learned counsel for the defacto complainant to buttress this point.

¶59

8. Admittedly, petitioners 1 and 3 are the Directors of Quarous Technologies Pvt.Ltd. (company got arrayed as the 6^th accused in Crime No.205/2023 and 7^th accused in Crime No. 206/2023). It is surprising, rather shocking to note that the Directors and share holders of the company would allege that they have no role in collecting the money with offer to give more profit and the entire responsibility is that of the 1^st accused, who acted as the C.E.O of the company. On no stretch of imagination, it can be held that the Directors of the company could wriggle out from the criminal liability, merely alleging that the 1^st accused is the person who dealt with entire money and misappropriated the same. Although the learned Sessions Judge granted anticipatory bail to the 1^st accused, may be on wrong understanding of facts, this Court stayed implementation of the said bail orders as per the relevant orders placed by the learned counsel for the defacto complainant. The legality of the bail orders given by the Sessions Judge, shall be considered by this Court in the Crl.M.Cs,

¶60

BAIL APPL. NOS.10948

¶61

& 10952 OF 2023 9

¶62

which are pending. As things stand now, the 1^st accused also not released on bail.

¶63

9. The prosecution records would reveal that 4.14 (1.94 + 2.2) crores of rupees involved and the entire money was collected in the account of the company, where petitioners 1 and 3 are the Directors and the 2^nd petitioner is a share holder. Therefore, their responsibility in the matter of collection of deposits and misappropriation of the same could not be read in a light manner to enlarge them on pre-arrest bail. The prosecution records would convince that arrest, custodial interrogation and probe regarding the details of the money misappropriated are inevitable part of impartial investigation to accomplish meaningful prosecution. In such a case, grant of pre-arrest bail to the Directors and share holder of a company, where huge scam is alleged, cannot be considered, being a discretionary relief. Indubitably, in the facts of the given case, grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners not only would hamper and spoil the investigation, but the same may have the effect of an honourable/honorous acquittal of the petitioners, even before completion of investigation. Therefore, these petitions must fail.

¶64

BAIL APPL. NOS.10948

¶65

& 10952 OF 2023 10

¶66

Accordingly, both the petitions stand dismissed.”

¶67

On perusal of the report of the Investigating Officer,

¶68

these are very serious crimes and as of now, Crime Nos.162/2023, 195/2023 and 205/2023 were also registered apart from the present crimes. It is reported by the learned Public Prosecutor that, Rs.97 Lakh was credited to the account of the 2^nd accused Somarajan, vide Account No.13160100187381 of Federal Bank, Ernakulam from the account of HDFC Bank account vide No.59209442246607 of M/s Primero global Fin Corp CBE. Further, it is submitted that, Rs.35 Lakh was deposited to the account of the 3^rd accused also and the 3^rd accused withdrawn a major portion of the said amount.

¶69

Even though the learned counsel for the petitioners sought anticipatory bail on the submission that this a civil dispute, on perusal of materials placed by the learned Public Prosecutor, on no stretch of imagination, it could be found that the allegations are not made out prima facie and the dispute is

¶70

BAIL APPL. NOS.10948

¶71

& 10952 OF 2023 11

¶72

of pure civil in nature. Therefore, in these crimes, arrest, custodial interrogation and recovery or investigation regarding the money deposited in the account of the petitioners, are absolutely necessary to effectuate meaningful investigation.

¶73

The learned counsel for the de facto complainant submitted that, even though this Court dismissed the anticipatory bail applications, at the instance of accused Nos.8 to 10 in Crime No.206/2023 and accused Nos.7 to 9 in Crime No.205/2023, as early on 21.3.2023, the Investigating Officer failed to arrest them and to go with effective investigation, though these cases involve huge scam of crores of rupees. This submission is not seriously opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor also.

¶74

In view of the discussion, the petitioners herein do not deserve anticipatory bail, since their arrest, custodial interrogation and recovery or investigation regarding the money deposited in their account, at their instance, are necessary, as already pointed out. Therefore, both these petitions stand dismissed.

¶75

BAIL APPL. NOS.10948

¶76

& 10952 OF 2023 12

¶77

At the same time, the attitude of the Investigating Officer in not arresting accused Nos.8 to 10 in Crime No.206/2023 and accused Nos.7 to 9 in Crime No.205/2023, for a period of 10 months, even after dismissal of their anticipatory bail applications by this Court, is noted with extreme displeasure and the same is found as lack of effective investigation in serious crimes of this nature.

¶78

Therefore, Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Director General of Police, to look into the matter and ensure meaningful investigation in these crimes, forthwith.

¶79

Sd/-

¶80

A. BADHARUDEEN JUDGE

¶81

Somarajan M.R v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Somarajan M.R 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

Sathyanessan Vs Babu

Thirupuram Grama Panchayath Vs K. Padmini

Poyil Salim Vs Thazhe Kandoth Mariyam

Madhu M.V Vs State of Kerala

Joseph K.X. Vs K.P.Michael

Joseph K.X. Vs K.P.Michael