IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 5555 of 2007(A)
1. K.M.ABDUL LATHEEF, AGED 63 YEARS,
... Petitioner
2. T.J.SANTHOSH, AGED 36 YEARS,
Vs
1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE ,KANNUR
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.K.DIVAKARAN NAIR
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :19/09/2007
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
B.A.No. 5555 of 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 19th day of September, 2007
O R D E R
Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioners are the
Manager and Managing Director of a computer training centre by
name One Zero Computers. They face allegations, inter alia, under
Section 420 I.P.C. The crux of the allegations against the petitioners
is that they made fraudulent misrepresentation to the public at large
and induced the gullible members of the public like the defacto
complainant to pay amounts and join the training course conducted
by the One Zero Computer Centre. Huge amounts were collected
from the victims like the defacto complainant as entrance fee and
tuition fee. Crime was registered on the basis of a complaint filed by
the defacto complainant before the learned Magistrate, which was
referred by the learned Magistrate to the police under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C. Investigation is in progress. The petitioners apprehend
imminent arrest.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
allegations raised are totally unsustainable. A disgruntled student is
B.A.No. 5555 of 2007
2
raising untenable allegations against the petitioners. There is no dispute
that the petitioners run a computer centre. There is no dispute that the
petitioners have issued certificates to the defacto complainant, a successful
candidate. There is no dispute that the Electronics Corporation of India
Ltd. (E.C.I.L.) has also issued the Diplomas to the defacto complainant and
other like students.
3. What then is the grievance of the defacto complainant? The
defacto complainant complains that the petitioners had represented that he
will get a certificate which is approved by the National Council of
Vocations Training (N.C.V.T.). That is the allegation in the complaint. He
has in fact received only a certificate issued by the Electronics Corporation
of India Ltd. and the said diploma is not approved or recognized by the
N.C.V.T. The prosecution does not now stress on that allegation very
much. The news paper publication etc., under which the petitioners had
advertised, show clearly that they were claiming to issue certificate of
Electronics Corporation of India Ltd., a Central Government undertaking.
No specific representation that the petitioners had N.C.V.T. approval is
ever seen made. Except an assertion of the defacto complainant in the
complaint, there is nothing to show that such a representation was made.
B.A.No. 5555 of 2007
3
4. There is a further allegation that the Centre at Kannur was not an
authorised centre of E.C.I.L. There is no dispute that the petitioners have
due authorisation to run the course at Neeleshwaram from the E.C.I.L. The
fact that they ran the course at Kannur even if it might offend the terms of
the agreement between the E.C.I.L. and the petitioners cannot at any rate be
held to be practice of deception against the defacto complainant and others
similarly placed.
5. Prima facie I do find merit in the prayer for anticipatory bail. I
may hasten to observe that I have not intended to decide on the
acceptability or otherwise of the allegations or the data collected.
6. In the result:
(1) This application is allowed.
(2) The following directions are issued under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
(a) The petitioners shall surrender before the learned Magistrate on
26.9.2007 at 11 a.m. The learned Magistrate shall release the petitioners on
regular bail on condition that they execute bonds for Rs.25,000/-
(Rupees twenty five thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for
the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate.
B.A.No. 5555 of 2007
4
(b) The petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation
before the Investigating Officer between 10 a.m. and 1 p.m. on 27.9.07 and
thereafter as and when directed by the Investigating Officer in writing to do
so.
(c) If the petitioners do not appear before the learned Magistrate as
directed in clause (1) above, these directions shall lapse on 26.9.06 and the
police shall be at liberty thereafter to arrest the petitioners and deal with
them in accordance with law.
(d) If the petitioners were arrested prior to their surrender on
26.9.2006 as directed in clause (1) above, they shall be released on bail on
their executing bonds for Rs.25,000/- each without any surety undertaking
to appear before the learned Magistrate on 26.9.2007.
(R. BASANT)
Judge
tm