Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Lalitha vs State Of Kerala on 6 July, 2012

Author: N.K.Balakrishnan

Bench: N.K.Balakrishnan

       

  

  

 
 
                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT:

              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN

           FRIDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JULY 2012/15TH ASHADHA 1934

                    Bail Appl..No. 4139 of 2012 ()
                     ------------------------------

      (CRIME NO.389/2011 OF VIDYANAGAR POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD)
                             ------------

PETITIONER/ACCUSED (RANK NOT KNOWN):
-----------------------------------

         LALITHA, AGED 37 YEARS
         S/O.KUNHIKANNAN THERUVATH
         NOW RESIDING AT BESC BANK, KUNDAMKUZHI P.O.
         KASAZRAGOD-671541.

         BY ADV. SRI.S.JIJI

RESPONDENT/STATE:
-----------------

         STATE OF KERALA
         REPRESENTED BY S.H.O.VIDYANAGAR POLICE STATION
         KASAZRAGOD DISTRICT, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
         HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

         BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SURESH

       THIS BAIL APPLICATION  HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON  06-07-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:



VK



                   N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J.
            - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                    B.A. No.4139 OF 2012
            - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

           Dated this the 06th day of July, 2012

                              O R D E R

The petitioner is the 5th accused in Crime No. 389/2011 of Vidyanagar Police Station, Kasaragod District. The offence alleged against him is under section 420 of IPC and section 4, 5 and 6 of the Prize chits and Money Circulation Banning Act. Apprehending arrest, this petition is filed for anticipatory bail.

2. The crime was registered when a complaint was filed by one of the depositors alleging that a sum of ` 45,000/- was obtained by the accused persons offering interest at 20% and that it was because of such inducement, he happened to deposit ` 45,000/-. But when demanded, interest was not paid and the principal amount also was not repaid. It was stated that the complainant was told that amounts collected from him and others would be deposited B.A.No.4139/2012 -2- as a share in the Super Market Project to be started in Kasaragod and other places. The investigation revealed that a Public Limited Company by name 'Rural Super Market' was formed of which first accused was the Managing Director. The company offered interest at 20 to 25% and thus collected shares at the rate of ` 10,500/-. Several hundreds of persons were lured into that project, as, the interest offered was up to 25%. Some super markets were started at some places. Out of the amounts so collected from the depositors, portions of the amounts were unauthorizedly siphoned off to other institutions and companies without the knowledge of the depositors.

3. Another company by name "Noble India Grameena Super Market" was also formed by the accused persons in order to divert the amount so collected. It was stated that so many other companies or sister concerns in different names like Gem Plus, Gem Gold, Gem Property, Thulunadu Resorts, Amusement Park were formed with the sole object B.A.No.4139/2012 -3- of diverting the amounts collected from thousands of depositors and ultimately to cheat those depositors by putting forth one ground or other.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner has been arrayed as accused only because she happened to be the wife of one of the Directors of that company. It is stated that her husband has already been arrested and he is in custody. The learned Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the petition stating that it is a case where total amounts amassed by the accused persons comes to nearly 15 crores and that approximately 23,000 persons were cheated.

5. The contention that the custodial interrogation is not required, also is strongly opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor stating that only on proper interrogation, it can be found as to accounts/companies to which amounts collected from the depositors were siphoned off or diverted. B.A.No.4139/2012 -4-

Considering the gravity of the offence, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Hence it is dismissed.

Sd/-

N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.

ds //True copy// P.A. to Judge