Kerala High Court
M.C. Kamarudheen vs State Of Kerala on 30 November, 2020
Author: Ashok Menon
Bench: Ashok Menon
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON
MONDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942
Bail Appl.No.7884 OF 2020
CRIME NO.121/2020 OF SMS(Special Mobile Squad) Police Station ,
Kasargod
PETITIONER/S:
M.C. KAMARUDHEEN
AGED 56 YEARS,
KARMMA, EDACHAKKAI P.O,
KASARGOD - 671310.
BY ADVS.
SRI.SUNNY MATHEW
SRI.C.K.SREEDHARAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682031.
2 ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
SMS POLICE STATION, KASARGOD.
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY, SR PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
30.11.2020, ALONG WITH Bail Appl.7901/2020, Bail Appl.7903/2020,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.Nos.7884, 7901 & 7903 OF 2020
2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON
MONDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942
Bail Appl.No.7901 OF 2020
CRIME NO.150/2020 OF SMS(Special Mobile Squad) Police Station ,
Kasargod
PETITIONER/S:
KAMARUDHEEN
AGED 56 YEARS,
KARMMA, EDACHAKKAI P.O,
KASARGOD - 671310.
BY ADVS.
SRI.SUNNY MATHEW
SRI.C.K.SREEDHARAN
RESPONDENT/S:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682031.
BY SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY, SENIOR GOVT.PLEADER
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
30.11.2020, ALONG WITH Bail Appl.7884/2020, Bail Appl.7903/2020,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.Nos.7884, 7901 & 7903 OF 2020
3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON
MONDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942
Bail Appl.No.7903 OF 2020
CRIME NO.180/2020 OF SMS(Special Mobile Squad) Police Station ,
Kasargod
PETITIONER/S:
M.C KAMARUDHEEN,
AGED 56 YEARS,
KARMMA, EDACHAKKAI P.O,
KASARGOD - 671310.
BY ADVS.
SRI.SUNNY MATHEW
SRI.C.K.SREEDHARAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
682031
2 ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
SMS POLICE STATION, KASARGOD.
BY SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY, SENIOR GOVT.PLEADER
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
30.11.2020, ALONG WITH Bail Appl.7884/2020, Bail Appl.7901/2020,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.Nos.7884, 7901 & 7903 OF 2020
4
COMMON ORDER
[ Bail Appl.7884/2020, Bail Appl.7901/2020, Bail Appl.7903/2020 ] Dated this the 30th day of November 2020 Applications for regular bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.
2. The applicant is an accused in several cases of economic fraud. The three applications before this court are concerning Crime Nos.121/2020, 150/2020 and 180/2020 of the Crime Branch, which was re-registered after the initial Crimes were registered at Chandera Police Station. The offences alleged against the applicant and others are punishable under Sections 406, 409 and 420 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C.; under Section 5 of the Kerala Protection of Interests of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act, 2013 (for short "the Financial Act"); and under Section 3 read with Section 5 of Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019 (for short "the BUDS Act"). B.A.Nos.7884, 7901 & 7903 OF 2020 5
3. The prosecution cases pertain to the complaints filed by different depositors and the general allegation is that the applicant and other accused involved in these crimes had dishonestly induced gullible persons to deposit their hard earned money in the company named Fashion Gold International Pvt.Ltd., Cheruvathoor and its sister concerns and misappropriated all those amounts and used those amounts to buy properties in their names.
4. The applicant is a Member of the Legislative Assembly and he is the Chairman of all those companies, the 1st accused is the Managing Director and in some of the cases, the 1st accused's son is also implicated as an accused. The prosecution case is that the entire amounts, which were received from gullible persons were misappropriated and utilised by the accused, which includes the applicant, to enrich themselves. The applicant being an M.L.A. and the President of a political party had huge influence on these gullible investors and they never imagined that they would be B.A.Nos.7884, 7901 & 7903 OF 2020 6 losing their money considering the status and position of the applicant. Therefore, the applicant had an important role in dishonestly inducing the alleged incident of fraud and cheating.
5. The applicant, on the other hand, would submit that he was only a name lender for the companies as its Chairman. He was never actively involved in the business of the company or its sister concerns. Being an M.L.A., most of his time was spent in Thiruvananthapuram and he was also holding a responsible position of the President of a respected political party. He hardly had any time left to attend to the affairs of the companies. Under the circumstances, it was the 1st accused, who was solely responsible for the management of the affairs of the company. It may be true that the applicant may have participated in a few of the meetings of the company, but that by itself will not indicate that the applicant was an active participant in the affairs of the company. It is also stated that the offences under the B.A.Nos.7884, 7901 & 7903 OF 2020 7 Special Statutes like the BUDS Act and the Financial Act referred to above, will not be attracted in the instant case, because most of the transactions referred to, took place much prior to the implementation of those Statutes, and moreover, the applicant is not conducting a financial institution, which would attract an offence under the Financial Act.
6. The learned Counsel for the applicant, Sri.C.K. Sreedharan and Sri.Sunny Mathew and the learned Senior Public Prosecutor Sri.Suman Chakravarthy were heard in detail. Records perused.
7. The applicant has produced his medical certificate, which would indicate that he is suffering from ischemic heart disease, two vessel disease and also suffering from type-2 diabetes mellitus. Under the circumstances, it is stated that in case he is incarcerated for a long period, his health would suffer and since he has been in custody from 07.11.2020, further incarceration of the applicant may not be necessary and that he be granted bail.
B.A.Nos.7884, 7901 & 7903 OF 2020 8
8. The Sri.Suman Chakravarthy submits that the applicant is the man wielding substantial influence and in case he is released on bail at this stage of investigation, when the co-accused could not even be apprehended by the investigating agency for interrogation, there is every possibility of influencing the witnesses or tampering with the evidence, and thus hampering the further investigation of this case. The learned Public Prosecutor has also relied on several decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court regarding serious financial frauds and economic offences. In Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Nittin Johari and another, AIR 2019 SC 4380 and in Y.S.Jagan Mohan Reddy v. C.B.I., (2013) 7 SCC 439, it has been held that economic offences are grave in nature and that the court should keep in mind the nature of accusation and the nature of evidence in support thereof and severity of the punishment which conviction will entail and that economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. In the B.A.Nos.7884, 7901 & 7903 OF 2020 9 instant case, several persons have been allegedly cheated and deprived of their hard earned money and there are presently 75 crimes registered against the applicant and other co-accused and the total amount involved runs into crores of rupees. Hence, it is submitted by the learned Prosecutor that the applicant may not be granted bail.
9. After having considered the submissions made on both sides, I find that the applicant has been in custody since 07.11.2020. He is a Member of the Legislative Assembly and leader of an influential political party having a large following. There is no doubt that he wields considerable influence on the common public. In Y.S.Jagan Mohan Reddy's case (supra) it is held that economic offences have having deep- rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country. Character, behaviour, B.A.Nos.7884, 7901 & 7903 OF 2020 10 means, position and standing of the accused, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced, and danger of justice being thwarted by grant of bail are essentially to be kept in mind while considering bail application. (See: State of U.P. through CBI v. Amarmani Tripathi, 2005 (8) SCC 21; Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi and Another, 2001 (4) SCC 280; Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh and Others, 2002 (3) SCC
598.)
10. In these cases in hand before this court, the 1st accused, who is supposed to be the Managing Director and the prime accused, is still at large. The investigation is still a nascent stage. Therefore, release of the applicant at this stage of the investigation is definitely going to hamper its progress, and I find that it is still too early for the applicant to be released on bail. The investigating agency will have to be given some more time to delve further into the financial conspiracies allegedly involved in these cases. The statutory period B.A.Nos.7884, 7901 & 7903 OF 2020 11 stipulated as per law is not yet over, and justice demands that reasonable time be given to the investigating agency to take the investigation to its logical conclusion.
Hence, the applications for bail are dismissed. However, I make it clear that on change of circumstances, the applicant is definitely at liberty to approach this Court again for bail. Moreover, in case the applicant needs medical attendance, the jail authorities are directed to act promptly to give him all such medical attendance as may be required from time to time.
Sd/-
ASHOK MENON
dkr JUDGE