Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 67999
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
ISAAC N A – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Bail Appl. No. 3251 of 2024 | Bail Appl. No. 2764 of 2024 | Bail Appl. No. 2670 of 2024 | Bail Appl. No. 2674 of 2024 | Bail Appl. No. 2680 of 2024 | Bail Appl. No. 2682 of 2024 | Bail Appl. No. 2683 of 2024 | Bail Appl. No. 2689 of 2024 | Bail Appl. No. 2690 of 2024 | Bail Appl. No. 2691 of 2024 | Bail Appl. No. 2693 of 2024 | Bail Appl. No. 2695 of 2024 | Bail Appl. No. 2696 of 2024 | Bail Appl. No. 2712 of 2024 | Bail Appl. No. 2714 of 2024 | Bail Appl. No. 2719 of 2024 | Bail Appl. No. 2765 of 2024 | Bail Appl. No. 2766 of 2024 | Bail Appl. No. 2770 of 2024 | Bail Appl. No. 3358 of 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: THOMAS J.ANAKKALLUNKAL, ANUPA ANNA JOSE KANDOTH, JAYARAMAN S., DHANYA SUNNY, ANN MILKA GEORGE
For the Respondents: SRI. PRASANTH M.P., SMT.SEENA C.
Bail is the rule, and jail is the exception; conditions for bail must ensure cooperation with the investigation and prevent further offenses.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 439 - Bail applications filed by accused in multiple crimes alleging offences under Section 420 IPC - Petitioners, as Chairman and Managing Director of a finance company, accused of cheating depositors - Petitioners claim financial difficulties due to RBI's cancellation of their company's registration - Court considers the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception - Bail granted with stringent conditions including surrendering passports and regular appearances before the Investigating Officer. (Paras 1-9)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners, aged 73 and 43, were accused of cheating depositors by not returning their deposits and interest, after collecting significant amounts for a period of five years. The company faced regulatory issues leading to the cancellation of its license by the RBI. (Paras 2-3)
Findings of Court:
The court acknowledged the financial issues faced by the petitioners and the potential for settlement with the victims, allowing bail under strict conditions to ensure compliance with the investigation. (Paras 7-9)
Issues: The primary issue was whether the petitioners should be granted bail considering the allegations of cheating and their current financial situation. (Paras 6-8)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that bail should be granted as a general rule, especially when the accused are likely to cooperate with the investigation and the continued detention may not serve justice. (Para 8)
Result: Bail applications allowed with conditions.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. arguments regarding bail application (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. court's considerations for bail (Para 7 , 8) |
| 3. conditions for granting bail (Para 9) |
O R D E R
These Bail Applications are filed under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.)
2. The petitioners in these cases are accused in Crime No.363/2024 of Fort Cochin Police Station, Crime No.302/2024 of Hill Palace Police Station, Crime Nos.166/2024, 174/2024, 175/2024, 183/2024, 179/2024, 177/2024, 186/2024, 180/2024, 185/2024, 188/2024 & 189/2024 of Koothattukulam Police Station, Crime Nos.204/2024, 205/2024 & 625/2024 of Ernakulam Central Police Station, Crime No.455/2024 of Muvattupuzha Police Station, Crime No.535/2024 of Thoppumpady Police Station, Crime No.188/2024 of Kuravilangadu Police Station and Crime No.433/2024 of Ernakulam South Police Station. Different cases are registered against the petitioners in these cases mainly alleging offences punishable under Sections 420 IPC.
3. The prosecution case in brief is as follows:
The petitioners being the Chairman and Managing Director of Nedumpilli Finance, with the intention to cheat and to make unlawful gain from the defacto complainants in these cases, received huge amount as deposit for a period of 5 years and cheated the defacto complainants without returning the deposit amount and its interest. Hence it is alleged that the accused committed the afore said offences.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners' company is a non-banking financial company (NBFC) namely Nedumpilli Finance Company Limited, incorporated on 30.12.1996 as evident by Annexure A2. It is submitted that the company is having validly registered license and is working under the supervision of the RBI. It is also submitted that, as per the license conditions, regulations and rules issued by the RBI in respect of working of NBFC's, the company is permitted to collect funds, permit investments from the public by way of financial instruments like Debentures, Preference Shares and Subordinate debt. The petitioners admit the deposits made by the defacto complainants in almost all the cases. It is also submitted that the petitioners paid a prominent amount as interest till July 2023. According to the petitioners, due to an audit finding report by the RBI, the RBI cancelled the company's certificate of registration as a Non-Banking Financial Institution as per an order dated 17.11.2022. Annexure A3 is the copy of the letter dated 22.11.2022 issued by the RBI cancelling the certificate of registration of the petitioners' company. Challenging the order of the RBI, it is submitted that the petitioners preferred a Writ petition before this Court and this Court was pleased to pass an interim order stating that, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioners. Annexure A4 is the order. It is also submitted that the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, Ministry of Finance, Government of India and the same was dismissed by the Appellate Authority upholding the finding of the RBI. Challenging the above order, the petitioners filed W.P.(C)No.23932/2023 before this Court and the order passed by the Appellate Authority is stayed as evident by Annexure A5 order is the submission. It is submitted that the cancellation of the certificate of registration by the RBI caused a huge impact on the financial management of the company. It is submitted that, even after that the petitioners paid interest on the deposit to the customers till July, 2023. The petitioners were arrested on 08.03.2024 and they were in custody from that day onwards. It is submitted that, one of the petitioner is aged 73 years and he is suffering from different ailments.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the Bail application and submitted that the petitioners cheated several persons and this Court may not release them on bail.
7
