IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 1365 of 2010()
1. RIJU VARGHESE, S/O.VARGHESE DANIEL,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :24/03/2010
O R D E R
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
---------------------------------------------
B.A.No.1365 of 2010
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 24th day of March, 2010
O R D E R
This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section
438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is
accused No.4 in Crime No.34 of 2010 of Pariyaram Medical
College Police Station.
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. Sudhikanth stated that he
BA No.1365/2010 2
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
BA No.1365/2010 3
Santhosh Kumar demanded Rs.5 lakhs more and Nizar was
directed to pay the amount at 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
BA No.1365/2010 4
made by Nizar to get back the amount failed and, therefore, he
filed the petition before the Director General of Police.
5. Accused Nos.1 and 2 had filed Bail Application
Nos.790 of 2010 and 926 of 2010 seeking for anticipatory bail
under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Those
applications were dismissed by the order dated 1st March, 2010.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed
the Bail Application. 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 petitioner 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.
7. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the
case, the nature and gravity of the offence and the allegations
levelled against the petitioner, I do not think that this is a fit
case where anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner.
Custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be required during
investigation. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, it
BA No.1365/2010 5
would be detrimental to the effective investigation of the case.
The offence alleged against the petitioner is very grave in
nature. It is also likely that the petitioner may tamper with
evidence and intimidate or influence the witnesses.
For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed.
K.T.SANKARAN,
JUDGE
csl