IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 2901 of 2009()
1. RAJAN, S/O.VELAPPAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. DETECTIVE INSPECTOR,
3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :09/06/2009
O R D E R
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
---------------------------------
B.A.Nos.2901 & 2907 of 2009
----------------------------------
Dated this the 9th day of June, 2009
ORDER
These applications are under Section 439 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure by the 7th accused in CBCID Crime
Nos.203/CR/TVM/2008 and 218/CR/TVM/2008.
2. The offences alleged against the petitioner in both
these cases are under Sections 406, 409, 420 and 120B read
with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was
arrested on 10.9.2008 in respect of another crime and formal
arrest was recorded in these cases on 16.3.2009.
3. The first accused in these cases is one Sabarinath,
who is the son of the petitioner. The petitioner is the Managing
Partner of two financial institutions under the name and style “I
NEST” and “TOT TOTAL”.
4. The learned Director General of Prosecution submitted
that one firm was registered by two partners, namely, Sabarinath
and the petitioner, under the name and style ‘Nest Investment
Solutions’ and using that registration number, the accused
persons pretended that there are other firms like I NEST, TOT
BA Nos.2901 & 2907/2009 2
TOTAL and SJR Group. The prosecution case is that offering very
huge rate of interest, the accused persons induced more than
1000 people to deposit huge amounts in the firms and they did
not return the money as and when demanded by the depositors.
It is alleged that the partners of the firms were not authorised to
collect the deposits and that false information was given to the
public regarding insurance and fixed deposits in the name of the
firms, while really, there was no insurance coverage and no fixed
deposits. It is alleged that fake fixed deposit receipts were
shown to the depositors to make them believe that the firms are
having sound financial position. The depositors invested amounts
under the hope that they will get exorbitant interest. Taking
advantage of the situation, the petitioner and the other accused
persons exploited the general public among whom many belong
to middle class and lower middle class families. The prosecution
also alleges that the petitioner is the Managing Partner of ‘I
NEST’ and that he personally canvased 40 persons to deposit
money.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the
BA Nos.2901 & 2907/2009 3
petitioner is only a class four employee in a co-operative Bank
and he continues to be in service.
6. The learned Director General of Prosecution stated
that the petitioner was leading a very luxurious life and that he
had spent Rs.14 lakhs for renovation of his residential building.
It is also stated by the Director General of Prosecution that
valuation of the renovation work was done by an approved valuer
to ascertain the actual amount spent for renovation of the
building. The investigation is in progress. It is submitted by the
learned Director General of Prosecution that if the petitioner is
released on bail at this stage, there is every likelihood that he
would try to influence or intimidate the witnesses and he would
make himself scarce.
7. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the
case, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this
stage.
The Bail Applications are accordingly dismissed.
K.T.SANKARAN,
JUDGE
csl