IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 790 of 2010()
1. SUDHIKANTH.K.V, S/O.LATE RAGHAVAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE, REPRESENTED BY STATION HOUSE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.K.V.SOHAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :01/03/2010
O R D E R
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
------------------------------------------------------
B.A. NOS.790 & 926 OF 2010
------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 1st day of March, 2010
O R D E R
B.A.No.790 of 2010 is filed by accused No.1 and B.A.No.926
of 2010 is filed by accused No.2 in Crime No.34 of 2010 of
Pariyaram Medical College Police Station, Thalassery, under Section
438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for pre-arrest bail.
2. The offence alleged against the accused is under Section
420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. One P.P.Nizar, O.V.Road, Thalassery filed a petition before
the Director General of Police, Thiruvananthapuram, which was
forwarded to the District Superintendent of Police, Kannur and later,
forwarded to the Pariyaram Medical College Police Station, where, it
was registered as Crime No.34 of 2010. The gist of the allegations
made by the de facto complainant P.P.Nizar is the following:
P.P.Nizar is working abroad. He met accused No.1 Sudhikanth, son
of “INTUC Raghavan”. While talking, Nizar told Sudhikanth about
the necessity of getting admission for MBBS to his daughter.
B.A. NOS.790 & 926 OF 2010
:: 2 ::
Sudhikanth stated that he would arrange a seat for MBBS. He
introduced the second accused, Santhosh Kumar, to Nizar.
Sudhikanth and Santhosh Kumar told him that a seat could be
secured on payment of Rs.39 lakhs. As directed by them, Nizar took
a Demand Draft for Rs.8 lakhs, payable to the Principal of Pariyaram
Medical College. Later, Sudhikanth told him that a Demand Draft
would not be received and that only cash would be accepted.
Accordingly, the Demand Draft was cancelled. They went to the
Medical College, Pariyaram. Nizar was made to believe that the
children of two ministers would come to the College and they would
make arrangements for securing the seat. While in the college,
Nizar, his daughter, Santhosh Kumar and Sudhikanth, met accused
No.3 Arun Kumar, accused No.4 Reeju Varghese (native of
Pathanamthitta) and accused No.5 Ratheesh. As the first
instalment, an amount of Rs.4.5 lakhs was paid to Sudhikanth, who
entrusted the amount to Santhosh Kumar and Santhosh Kumar paid
the amount to Arun Kumar, Reeju Varghese and Ratheesh. Nizar
and his daughter were assured that the seat would be made
available within four days and confirmation letter would be sent to
them. After two days, Sudhikanth and Santhosh Kumar demanded
Rs.5 lakhs more and Nizar was directed to pay the amount at
B.A. NOS.790 & 926 OF 2010
:: 3 ::
Ernakulam. Believing the words of accused Nos.1 and 2, Nizar went
along with the first accused Sudhikanth to Ernakulam. They met
accused No. 6 Saji Padmanabhan and Reeju Varghese at the office
of Reliance Life Insurance. Saji Padmanabhan is the Manager and
Reeju Varghese is the staff of Reliance Life Insurance. Saji
Padmanabhan and Reeju Varghese stated that one Latheef, who
was a polit bureau member from Andhra Pradesh, would be making
arrangements for securing the seat.
4. As assured, the seat for MBBS was not secured even after
three months. Nizar demanded to repay the amount paid by him.
He contacted several political leaders including the Secretary of CPI
(M), Kannur District, who contacted the District Secretary of CPI(M)
at Pathanamthitta. Arun Kumar stated that he was responsible to
repay only Rs.4.5 lakhs and he executed an agreement for
repayment of the same. Santhosh Kumar and Ashraf were the
witnesses to the agreement. Arun Kumar stated that the liability to
repay Rs.5 lakhs was on Reeju Varghese, Sudhikanth, Saji
Padmanabhan and Ratheesh. All the efforts made by Nizar to get
back the amount failed and, therefore, he filed the petition before the
Director General of Police.
B.A. NOS.790 & 926 OF 2010
:: 4 ::
5. Sudhikanth says that he is a well known politician and son
of a well known political leader. It is stated that Sudhikanth proposes
to contest in the Municipal election and that the case was foisted
against him by his political rivals. Attempt of his rivals is to tarnish
his image. The Co-operative Medical College, Pariyaram is under
the control of the party men of the Marxist party. The de facto
complainant was a worker of Marxist party. Sudhikanth has no
connection with the management of Pariyaram Medical College. It is
submitted that Sudhikanth is prepared to co-operate with the
investigation and that no custodial interrogation is necessary. Since
the petitioner is a well known politician, there is no chance of his
absconding or fleeing from justice.
6. Santhosh Kumar also submits that the case was foisted
against him and that he has no connection with the offence. The
other contentions raised by Sudhikanth were also raised by
Santhosh Kumar.
7. In B.A.No.790 of 2010, the de facto complainant filed an
application praying to implead him as additional respondent and to
B.A. NOS.790 & 926 OF 2010
:: 5 ::
hear him in the Bail Application. The learned counsel appearing for
the de facto complainant was also heard. He submitted that
Sudhikanth has no political image. He was expelled from the
political party. He contested in the local body elections as a rebel
candidate. It is also submitted that Sudhikanth is involved in a
forgery case. The de facto complainant submits that his daughter is
mentally upset due to the incidents which took place.
8. The learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the
applications. It is submitted that there is a racket who cheat people
making them believe that seats for MBBS and other professional
courses could be secured on payment of huge amounts. Custodial
interrogation of the petitioners is required. It would appear that
persons having political support are involved in the case. If
anticipatory bail is granted, it would adversely affect the proper
investigation of the case.
9. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the
case, the nature and gravity of the offence and the allegations
levelled against the petitioners, I do not think that this is a fit case
where anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners. Custodial
B.A. NOS.790 & 926 OF 2010
:: 6 ::
interrogation of the petitioners may be required during investigation.
If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioners, it would be
detrimental to the effective investigation of the case. The offence
alleged against the petitioners is very grave in nature. It is also likely
that the petitioners may tamper with evidence and intimidate or
influence the witnesses.
For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Applications are dismissed.
(K.T.SANKARAN)
Judge
ahz/