Back
High Court Of Kerala
K.T. SANKARAN
Pramod Issac - Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala, Represented by the Public prosecutor, Ernakulam - Respondent
Bail Appl. Nos. 2845, 2846 & 2853 of 2009
Decided On : 06/08/2009
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 167(2) - Whether the question of expiry of period, u/S.167(2)(a) proviso, in respect of cases in which arrest is recorded on subsequent dates can be determined on the basis of the date on which the arrest is recorded in first case - Whether such period has to be reckoned with from the date of arrest of each case - Whether the question of granting bail depends on the events contemplated u/S.167(2) Crl. P.C - Held, Several persons were allegedly cheated by the accused persons, including the petitioner - It is alleged by the prosecution that the accused persons had used fake fixed deposit receipts of banks for canvassing deposits from the public - Apprehension of the prosecution that if the petitioner is released on bail, he would make himself scarce is fortified by his conduct of not complying with the direction issued by this Court - There is also substance in the contention of the Director General of Prosecution that if the petitioner is released on bail, it is most likely that he would intimidate or influence the prosecution witnesses or cause hindrance to the proper and smooth investigation of the case - Bail Applications Dismissed.
Key Points: - The period under Section 167(2)(a) proviso must be taken with reference to each case (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The expiry of the period in one case does not bar detention in other cases if the arrests arise from different transactions (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - Bail under Section 439 is distinct from considerations under Section 167(2) (!) (!) . - The petitioner’s failure to comply with court directions and his conduct justify apprehension that he would intimidate witnesses or hinder investigation (!) (!) . - The allegations involve serious offences, use of fake fixed deposit receipts, and large-scale cheating amounting to over Rs. 50 crores (!) (!) . - Given the facts and circumstances, the bail applications are dismissed (!) .
Pramod Issac, who is accused No. 10 in Crime No. 28 of 2009 of CBCID, Thiruvananthapuram, who is also accused No. 5 in Crime No. 201 of 2008 and accused No. 4 in Crime No. 169 of 2008, seeks bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accused No.1 in these cases in one Sabarinath, who is the Managing Director of the financial institutions, namely, “Nest Investment Solutions”, “INEST”, “Total 4 U” etc. It is alleged that the accused persons induced more than one thousand of depositors by fraudulent representations offering very high rate of interest and other monetary benefits, which prompted the depositors to deposit huge amounts of money in the aforesaid financial institutions. It is also alleged that after amassing wealth by misappropriating money of the depositors, the accused persons closed down the institutions and absconded. Several depositors approached the police. Initially, the case was registered at the Medical College Police Station in August, 2008. In view of the serious nature of the offence involving crores of rupees belonging to the general public, the case was transferred to the Crime Branch CID for investigation. It is stated that the Crime Branch Unit, Thiruvananthapuram took up the investigation in September, 2008. The scam is popularly known as “Total 4 U scam”.
2. In Crime No. 169 of 2008, the offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 120(B), 109, 406, 409, 420, 465, 468, 471, 202 and 212 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 45(S) and 58 (B) ofthe Reserve Bank of India Act. In Crime No. 201 of 2008, the petitioner is accused of having committed offence under Sections 120(B), 406, 409 and 420 read with Sections 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In Crime No. 28 of 2009, the offence alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 120(B), 403, 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Learned Director General of Prosecution submitted that the petitioner moved an application for anticipatory bail before the High Court in B.A. No. 6116 of 2008. While dismissing that Bail Application, this Court directed the petitioner to report before the Investigating Officer within twenty days from 10.2008. The petitioner did not comply with that direction. He surrendered before the Investigating Officer only on 18.4.2009 and he was arrested in Crime No. 169 of 2008. The petitioner is in judicial custody since then. His formal arrest was recorded on 27.4.2009 in Crime No. 201 of 2008 and on 7.5.2009 in Crime No. 28 of 2009.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Security Supervisor of Nest Investment Solutions on 211.2007. On 112.2007, he was appointed as the Manager-in-charge of Total 4 U. On 16.3.2008, the petitioner was appointed as the Private Secretary to Sabarinath, the Managing Director. The counsel pointed out that on 18.2008 the petitioner left the employment and thereafter he has no connection with the financial institutions referred to above. The petitioner contends that he has not committed any offence, that he is in no way connected with collection of money from the depositors and that he had not received any commission for canvassing deposits as alleged by the prosecutions. It is pointed out that even the father of the petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs.3 lakhs in one of the financial institutions. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 18.4.2009. The investigating officer interrogated the petitioner, on getting an order from Court for custody. It is submitted that there is no reason to detain the petitioner further. The counsel submitted that any condition may be imposed for releasing the petitioner on bail.
5. Thelearned Director General of Prosecution submitted that if the petitioner is released on bail, there is every chance of evidence being tampered and the witnesses being intimidated or influenced. There is also every likelihood of the petitioner mak
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
