High Court Kerala High Court

Rasi Balakrishnan vs The Inspector Of Police on 4 December, 2007

Kerala High Court
Rasi Balakrishnan vs The Inspector Of Police on 4 December, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl No. 7412 of 2007()


1. RASI BALAKRISHNAN, AGED 37,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.B.RAMAN PILLAI

                For Respondent  :SRI.S.SREEKUMAR, SC FOR CBI

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :04/12/2007

 O R D E R
                         R. BASANT, J.
           -------------------------------------------------
                    B.A. No. 7412 OF 2007
           -------------------------------------------------
        Dated this the 4th day of December, 2007

                              ORDER

Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner is now

arrayed as the 6th accused in a crime registered by the Central

Bureau of Investigation, inter alia, under the provisions of the

Prevention of Corruption Act. The 1st accused is the father-in-

law of the petitioner. He was employed as an official of the

Customs Department. During the period from 15/7/03 to

8/7/05 – the check period, the 1st accused is alleged to have

amssed wealth grossly disproportionate to his known sources

of income. It is alleged that the petitioner and the 1st accused

had resorted to an ingenious method of collecting money

abroad by the petitioner and transferring it to the 1st accused,

his wife and daughters through the petitioner herein.

Rs.93,00,000/- remained as unaccounted wealth of the 1st

B.A. No. 7412 OF 2007 -: 2 :-

accused, it is alleged now. Investigation is in progress. Neither

the 1st accused nor the petitioner has been arrested so far. The

statement of the petitioner has once been recorded earlier. The

petitioner apprehends imminent arrest.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

only crime committed by the petitioner is that he had married

the daughter of the 1st accused. The petitioner is well qualified

and is honourably employed getting handsome salary and

income from his professional and business activities abroad.

The Investigating Officers want the petitioner to oblige them by

giving statements against the interests of the 1st accused. The

petitioner is unwilling to do so the same. The petitioner is kept

on tenterhooks. Only after this bail application was filed, has

the petitioner been arrayed as the 6th accused. The petitioner is

willing to co-operate with the Investigators. The petitioner does

not deserve to endure the trauma of arrest and incarceration.

In these circumstances, the petitioner may be granted

anticipatory bail, it is prayed.

3. The learned Standing Counsel for the C.B.I. opposes the

application. The learned Standing Counsel submits that

sufficient data has already been collected to indicate that the 1st

accused has amassed wealth grossly disproportionate to his

B.A. No. 7412 OF 2007 -: 3 :-

known sources of income. It has also been revealed from the

investigation so far that the petitioner has been used or has been

co-operating as a conduit. Through him such ill-gotten wealth is

transferred to the account of the 1st accused and his other close

relatives. The version given by the 6th accused is far from

satisfactory. They are contradictory and unacceptable. The

petitioner has to be subjected to detailed and exhaustive

interrogation to unearth the truth. There is absolutely no

circumstances justifying or warranting the invocation of the

extraordinary equitable discretion under Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C.,

submits the learned Standing Counsel.

4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I do find

merit in the opposition by the learned Standing Counsel. I am

unable to perceive any features in this case which can justify or

warrant the invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion

under Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C. In a serious crime like this the

petitioner must co-operate with the Investigators. He must

surrender before the Investigating Officers or the court having

jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the normal and

ordinary course.

5. In the result, this bail application is dismissed; but with

the observation that if the petitioner surrenders before the

B.A. No. 7412 OF 2007 -: 4 :-

Investigating Officers or the court concerned and seeks bail,

after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of

the case, the learned Judge must proceed to pass appropriate

orders on merits and expeditiously.

Sd/-

(R. BASANT, JUDGE)

Nan/

//true copy//

P.S. to Judge