IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 1029 of 2009()
1. SABARINATH, S/O.RAJAN, SABARI NIVAS
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.S.RAJEEV
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :26/03/2009
O R D E R
V. RAMKUMAR, J.
........................................
B.A.............................................
Nos. 1029 AND 1031 OF 2009
Dated: 31-03-2009
ORDER
In these petitions filed under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. the
common petitioner who is the first accused in CBCID Crime
Nos. 231/CR/Tvpm/08 and 223/CR/Tvpm/08 respectively,
seeks his enlargement on bail. He was arrested in connection
with Crime No. 169/CR/Tvpm/08 on 1-9-2008. His formal
arrest in these two cases was recorded on 27-1-2009.
2. In Crime No. 231/CR/Tvpm/08 the offences involved
are those punishable under Sections 120B, 406, 409, 415, 418
and 420 read with Sec. 34 I.P.C. In Crime No.
223/CR/Tvpm/08 the offences involved are those punishable
under Sections 120B, 406, 409 and 420 read with Sec. 34
I.P.C.
3. The case of the prosecution in Crime No.
231/CR/Tvpm/08 is as follows:-
A1 (Sabarinath-the petitioner herein) with the assistance
B.A. Nos. 1029 AND 1031 OF 2009 -:2:-
of his father (Rajan) (A4) started an establishment by name
Nest Investment Solutions in Mundakkal Arcade near Medical
College, Thiruvananthapuram on 30-04-2007. The said
establishment was got registered with the Registrar of Firms
at Vanchiyoor on 13-09-2007. Subsequently under the cover
of the said establishment certain sister concerns by name “I
Nest” at West Fort, Tatal 4 You at Capital Centre, Statue and
S.J.R. Group at Palayam in Thiruvananthapuram were also
started by them. A2 (Bindu Mahesh) was the Manager , A5
(Rahul) was the business Development Officer and A6 (Sanal)
was the sales staff in Nest Investment Solutions. A7 (Bindu
Suresh) and A8 (Adheela Beevi) were holding managerial
posts in the sister concerns and A3 (Hemalatha) was looking
after the accounts in the aforementioned concerns. On 24-12-
2007, A2 Bindu Mahesh and A7 Bindu Suresh had entered
into an agreement with A1 Sabarinath to fetch deposits worth
Rs. 30,00,000/- per month. Pursuant to the criminal
conspiracy hatched by the accused, prospective investors
were allured by holding out promises that the establishment
run by A1 had the permission from the NBFC-ND of the
Reserve bank of India and that interest rates higher than other
B.A. Nos. 1029 AND 1031 OF 2009 -:3:-
similar establishments were being paid since deposit amounts
were invested in commodities and shares and that the
depositors would be getting insurance coverage from Met Life
Insurance Company. On 12-7-2008 the de facto complainant
Jayanthan was induced to invest a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-, a
further sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- on 27-8-2008 and another sum
of Rs. 1,5 lakhs on 8-8-2008. Consequent on the breach of
promise committed by A1 and others when the complainant
demanded the promised interest and the principal amount
deposited, the same was refused by the accused persons who
had misutilised the funds received from the complainant and
others, for other personal gains of the accused.
4. The case of the prosecution in Crime No.
223/CR/Tvpm/08 can be summarised as follows:-
There are altogether nine accused persons in this case.
They are:-
A1 Sabarinath
A2 Bindu Mahesh
A3 Rajan
A4 Adhila Beevi
A5 Vinodh
B.A. Nos. 1029 AND 1031 OF 2009 -:4:-
A6 Beneef
A7 Chandrika
A8 Feni Felix and
A9 Bindu Suresh
On 6-8-2008 the accused persons in furtherance of the
criminal conspiracy hatched by them with a view to cheat the
investors and thereby make unlawful gains therefrom,
induced the de facto complainant Sajeevan to deposit Rs.
1,00,000/- in the concern by name Nest Investment Solutions
near the Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram and thereby
committed criminal breach of trust and cheating by not
paying the interest or the principal amounts as promised
earlier.
5. I heard Adv. Sri. S. Rajeev, the learned counsel
appearing for the common petitioner and Sri. C.K. Suresh,
the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the common
petitioner made the following submissions before me in
support of his request for bail:-
The petitioner who is aged 20 years has an excellent
track record in his academic career. He is a good sportsman
B.A. Nos. 1029 AND 1031 OF 2009 -:5:-
and gifted with varied talents. He was working as an agent in
Met Life Insurance. Using his skill he decided to conduct a
financial firm and collected amounts from various
customers and invested a portion of the amounts in Met Life
Insurance, a portion in share business and a portion in real
estate. Until his arrest he was never involved in any other
crime nor was there any complaint from any of the
subscribers. Unfortunately, at a time when the petitioner was
away on a foreign trip, one Pramod siphoned off a sum of
rupees four crores from the establishment of the petitioner.
Since the said Pramod was a close confidant of the
petitioner, he was not in a position even to file a complaint
against the said Pramod for fear of damage to the reputation
of the establishments floated by him. The act of betrayal by
Pramod was committed at the instance of one Chandramathi
who had worked as an agent in the petitioner’s firm and who
had later started a rival business and informed the petitioner’s
subscribers that they would not get their money from the
petitioner. All on a sudden the customers of the petitioner
barged into his establishment demanding their money back.
Since no financial institution can withstand such a mass
B.A. Nos. 1029 AND 1031 OF 2009 -:6:-
claim, the petitioner had no other alternative except to court
arrest and face the consequences. The total liability of the
petitioner is only 9 crores and the petitioner has got assets of
more than 10 crores now under the custody of the Court
Receiver in a suit pending before the Sub Court,
Thiruvananthapuram. The recession which is a global
calamity is also a reason for the petitioner not being able to
meet the unexpected demand from his customers. The
petitioner is not going to flee from justice. His passport which
was seized by the Medical College Police is presently in the
custody of the Court of the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Thiruvananthapuram. If the petitioner is released on bail, he
may be able to pay off his customers.
7. I am afraid that I cannot agree with the above
submissions made in support of the petitioner’s fervent
request for bail. There are about 29 cases in which the
petitioner is the common accused. Crime No.
231/CR/Tvpm/08 is the case re-registered by the Crime Branch
Police (CBCID). The said Case arose out of Crime No. 252/08
of Kadakkavoor Polcie Station. Likewise, CBCID Crime No.
223/CR./Tvpm/08 arises out of Crime No. 287/Kadakkavoor
B.A. Nos. 1029 AND 1031 OF 2009 -:7:-
Police Station. Almost all the cases registered against the
petitioner are at the instance of depositors who are alleged to
have been duped by the petitioner and his associates. It was
promising attractive returns that the petitioner and the other
co-accused mobilised deposits totalling to more than Rs. 10
crores from various depositors. They are believed to have
deceived more than 1200 depositors and after amassing the
ill-gotten wealth, they allegedly went underground closing the
establishments namely Nest Investment Solutions, I – Nest,
S.J.R. Group and Total 4 You etc. The petitioner was heading
all the fake institutions and he took an active part in inducing
the depositors to make huge deposits in the establishments
promising 30 to 50 percentage returns on their deposits. Bulk
of the depositors who had deposited their money in
Nationalised Banks for the purpose of the marriage of their
daughters and allied purposes had withdrawn those deposits
and deposited in the establishments of the petitioner
expecting the high interest offered. The prime confidants of
the petitioner namely, Chandramathi and Dr. Remani are still
absconding. The petitioner started the fake institutions only
one and a half years back. His father was a Class-IV employee
B.A. Nos. 1029 AND 1031 OF 2009 -:8:-
and his mother is a house wife in Neyyattinkara. His family
has only 10 cents of property in Neyyattinkara which is a
rural area. The initial version of the petitioner to the police
was that he had secured COT recognition by canvassing
policies worth Rs. 74 crores from the public. But on perusal
of the records of Met Life Insurance it was found out that
almost all the policy holders for whom the petitioner was the
sponsor are either co-accused or suspects or even the Ext-
staff of the petitioner and through them more than Rs.
1,15,36,296/- had already been remitted as premium
amount. The policy holders of the petitioner in Met Life
Insurance had told the police that they had furnished
application forms for obtaining the policies in Met Life
Insurance on the representation made to them by the
petitioner that their premium amounts had already been
remitted by the petitioner. The police are investigating into
the Benami nature of the policies. The investigation thus far
conducted by the Crime Branch Police has revealed that the
petitioner had purchased 19 luxury Cars with the money
fraudulently obtained from the general public. The following
are the details of the Cars purchased by the petitioner:-
B.A. Nos. 1029 AND 1031 OF 2009 -:9:-
1. A Maruthi Swift Car bearing Reg. No. KLO1 AK 35 from
one Latheef for Rs. 6,40,000/-.
2. A Honda CRV with Register No. KL 20 A 1919 was
purchased by the petitioner inhis name for Rs. 18,30,000/-
in which Rs. 10,00,000/- was hire purchase loan from
Kotak Mahindra Bank, Vellayambalam
3. A Skoda car bearing Reg. No. KL 20 A 11 was
purchased in his name for Rs. 21,00,000/-.
4. A Lancer Cedia car bearing Reg. No. Klo1 AS 8002 was
brought for another accused Lekshmi Mohan in her name
for Rs. 9,00,000/-
5. A Wolswagen Beetle car bearing Reg. No. MP45 C 382 was
brought from Ernakulam Vyttila fo Rs. 28,00,000/- ready
cash.
6. Another Honda Accord car bearing Reg. No. KL07 At 2 was
purchased for 8,25,000/-.
7. Another Maruthi Swift car bearing Reg. No. KL07 AT 2 was
purchased for Rs. 8,25,000/-
8. Another Lancer Cedia Car with Reg. No. KL 20 8400 was
purchased for Rs. 9,20,000/- and registered at
Neyyattinkara RTO.
B.A. Nos. 1029 AND 1031 OF 2009 -:10:-
9. A Nippon Toyotta Camry car with Reg. No. purchased in
the name of the father Rajan who is another accused for Rs.
22,00,000/.
10. Another old model car by name Vanguard car with Reg.
No. MDN 3567 was purchased from Salem for Rs.
70,000/-
11. A Tata Indica car bearing Reg. No. KL01 AP 6104 in the
name of the petitioner was purchased from a private
person for Rs. 2,80,000/-
12. A Honda Accorde with Reg. No. KL 39/Tem. New
Registration (Temporary) was purchased for 19,00,000/- in
the petitioner’s name.
13. A Lexes Car with Reg. No. OL6C 3500 was purchased from
one Raj Kumar for Rs. 11,00,000/-
14. A Mitzubishi Pajew car with Reg. No. KL 20 A 555 was
purchased by the petitioner in his name for Rs. 16,30,000/-
out of which s. 10,00,000/- is Hire purchase loan from
HDFC.
15. A Skoda Loura car with Reg. No. KLO1 AS 2002 was
purchased by the petitioner for Rs. 17,00,000/-.
Rs.11,00,000/- is hire purchase loan from ICICI Bank ,
Statue Branch.
B.A. Nos. 1029 AND 1031 OF 2009 -:11:-
16. The prestigious BMW car purchased in the name of the
petitioner for Rs. 38,00,000/-
17. A Civic Car with Reg. No. KLO 5X007 was purchased for
Rs. 9,30,000/- in the petitioner’s name.
18. Another Innova car with Reg. No. KL01 AT 171 was
purchased by the petitioner for Rs. 12,00,000/- and
registered in the name of another accused Hemalatha. The
car was in the possession of another prime accused Dr.
Remani.
19. Another old model car by name Ford Anglier was
purchased for Rs. 70,000/- from Salem.
The investigation conducted by the Crime Branch Police has
revealed that the petitioner had entered into agreements for
purchase of landed properties paying huge amounts by way of
advance utilising the money which the unsuspecting public
had deposited with him after reposing implicit faith and
confidence in him. The following are the details of those
properties:-
i) For taking over the company named Consumer Credit and
B.A. Nos. 1029 AND 1031 OF 2009 -:12:-
Hire purchase Limited the petitioner made an agreement with
one M.A. Mathi of Koyencherry for Rs. 39,00,000/- in which Rs.
20,00,000/- was deposited at Dhanalekshmi Bank,
Vazhuthacaud as fixed deposit and holded 91 % share of the
said company.
ii) The petitioner made agreement for the purchase of a 20
cent landed property at Kazhakuttam Attipra near the Highway
and paid an advance of Rs. 30 lakhs.
3. The petitioner made an agreement with one Asharaf for
purchasing 12 cents of landed property with a house for Rs. 1
crore 40 lakhs. Cheque amounting to Rs. 66 lakhs was paid.
4. The petitioner Sabarinath has given Rs. 85 lakhs as loan to
one Sreekantan who was the NRUI Manager of Vazhuthacaud
Dhanalekshmi Bank.
5. The petitioner Sabarinath has purchased another property
with a house at Thiruvananthapuram Kalladi paying Rs. 28
lakhs.
6. The petitioner Sabarinath has given Rs. 23 lakhs to one
Biju of Mavelikkara by closing an FD account in Vazhuthacaud
Dhanalekshmi Bank and by transferring the same to Federal
Bank and also gave to Biju gold worth Rs. 10 lakhs. The goild
was received back and gave to Shyam.
7. The petitioner ventured to real estate by deceiving and
B.A. Nos. 1029 AND 1031 OF 2009 -:13:-
using the money of the people who has deposited in his fake
financial institution. For one of the costly purchase of a landed
property of 4 = acres in the name of his binami one
Udayakumar. An agreement was made with the owner of the
said property one Rajkumar for Rs. 4 = crore and advance of
Rs. 63 lakhs was paid by the petitioner. The petitioner was
proposing to construct flats in that property and sell it.
8. For purchasing another costly property of 7 acres 84 cents
at Pidaram near Thirumala, an agreement was made for Rs. 3
crore 95 lakhs between the petitioner and the owner of the said
property one D.N. Nair. An advance of Rs. 1 crore 10 lakhs was
paid as advance by the petitioner. The construction works of
villas including a Tourism club and a car club was estimated at
Rs. 1 crore 13 lakhs. Investigation has revealed that
construction works were progressing before reporting of the
case.
9. The petitioner made another agreement for the purchase
of a 9 cent land along with a house for Rs. 1 crore 40 lakhs in
Thiruvananthapuram Vattiyoorkavu junction and for the same
he paid Rs. 72 lakhs as advance.
10. Alleppey Kuttanadu was another destination where the
petitioner spend the money of them illegally and choose to
purcahse and take over a resort by name Senic Villa in a 1 acre
25 cent land from an NRI with regard to the purchase he made
an agreement for Rs. 1 crore 80 lakhs and paid an advance of
50 lakhs.
B.A. Nos. 1029 AND 1031 OF 2009 -:14:-
11. The petitioner Sabarinath has given Rs. 46 lakhs as loan
during February 2008 to one Shammer owner of Velocity
Travels at Sasthamangalam.
It is also revealed that the petitioner bought a flat for Rs. 30
crores in Thiruvananthapuram Kowdiar, Queens Way Point.
He had also taken another flat on rent from Marine Plaza
Abad Building at Marine Drive, Kochi paying an advance of
Rs. 1,20,000/-. The names and other particulars of the
innumerable depositors who have been duped are yet to be
collected by the investigating agency. Besides Met Life
Insurance, it is believed that there could be policy holders of
the petitioner in other institutions like Sharewealth and
Sharekhan. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not
complete with regard to many of the other crimes registered
against him. There is also a chance of the petitioner making
himself scarce if released on bail and thereby fleeing from
justice. He is a person who had undertaken foreign tours at
this young age of twenty years. The fact that his passport is
in the custody of the Court is no guarantee that he will not
go abroad. When the details of the assets which have been
B.A. Nos. 1029 AND 1031 OF 2009 -:15:-
committed to the custody of the Court Receiver by the Sub
Court, Thiruvananthapuram are not known, It may not be safe
to presume that all the ill-gotten assets of the petitioner are
custodia legis. Two of the female accused are still
absconding. I am, therefore, not inclined to grant bail to the
petitioner. These applications are, accordingly, dismissed.
Dated, this the 31st day of March, 2009.
Sd/- V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.
ani/
/true copy/
