AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
111 paragraphs · 1,599 wordsA.Badharudeen, J
This petition has been filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the petitioners, who are accused 1 to 6 in Crime No.635/2022 of Bedakam Police Station, Kasaragod district, seeking anticipatory bail.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused case diary as such and the report placed by the learned Public Prosecutor.
The prosecution case as that can be extracted from the case diary placed by the learned Public Prosecutor is that, as per the informaton at the instance of Market Intelligence Team of Reserve Bank of India regarding unauthorised deposit collection by GBG Nidhi at Kundamkuzhi within the jurisdiction of Bedakam Police Station in Kasaragod district, a preliminary enquiry was conducted and the same revealed that GBG Nidhi Ltd. (CIN U65999KL2020PLN065721), a company registered under the Companies Act on 12th November, 2020, Headquarters at Kandamkuzhi in Kasaragod district, where the 1st petitioner, Vinod Kumar D is the Managing Director and Chairman of the Company and Subhash Chiravangat, Chengala Mohammad Razak, Periya Gangadharan Nair, Prejith, Joshi George and Rajish Maniyat as Directors had given an offer to the effect that “Your Money Will be Double in Forty Weeks Guaranteed”. The Company also promised to give a person who deposits Rs.1 lakh, Rs.1,000/- at their wallet daily and also would give Rs.1,80,000/- within 10 months. Accordingly, various persons, attracted by the offer, accepted the offer and deposited huge amount of money. The Investigation team found that GBG Nidhi Limited Company maintained 8 accounts and there were transactions to the tune of Rs.49,75,82,408/- in the said accounts. But the balance outstanding at the time of freezing of the accounts is Rs.11,16,52,807/- and the remaining amounts were misappropriated by the accused after cheating and defrauding the depositors. Since the company was not approved by Securities and Exchange Board of India (`SEBI' for short) or Reserve Bank of India (`RBI' for short), the collection of huge amount of money by the accused under the company name GBG Nidhi Limited is against the sanction of law. Accordingly, the 18 cases were registered alleging commission of offences punishable under Section 420 of IPC as well as under Section 3 r/w 21(1) & (2) and 5 r/w 23 of the Buds Act, 2029. Crime No.635/2022 is one among the crimes out of 18.
The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that none of the depositors lodged any complaint and the present crime was registered based on a complaint filed by one Muraleedharan, S/o.Chindan Poduval, District Secretary, Prathikarana Vedi. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the said Muraleedharan is not at all aggrieved by the activities of the GBG Nidhi Limited and therefore,the complaint itself is on a wrong footing. Further the petitioners were given permission to collect deposit from public. Therefore, no offence would attract in this case. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioners pressed for grant of anticipatory bail.
Whereas the learned Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the anticipatory bail at the instance of the petitioners on the submission that even though statement of one Muraleedharan was recorded while registering the present crime, 18 crimes against the petitioners have been registered based on an information of Market Inteligence Team of Reserve Bank of India regarding unauthorised deposit by GBM Nidhi Limited. Therefore, the allegation of the petitioners' counsel that this crime was registered merely recording the statement of Muraleedharan alone is absolutely false. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the petitioners, who were nabbed in certain other crimes in similar fashion, are avoiding arrest since another learned Judge of this Court granted interim order - `not to arrest' the petitioners. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, arrest and custodial interrogation of the petitioners are necessary in this case and, therefore, anticipatory bail in a case involving scam of crores of rupees cannot be considered at all.
On perusal of the report and the materials available with the case diary, it could be gathered that this crime was registered on the basis of an information at the instance of Market Intelligence Team of Reserve Bank of India regarding the unauthorised deposit of collection at GBG Nidhi at Kundamkuzhi and in the prsent crime, statement of Muraleedharan, District Secretary of Prathikarana Vedi was also recorded. But the specific case of the prosecution is that GBG Nidhi Ltd., represented by the Managing Director and the Directors, who are accused in this crime, were not given any approval or permission by the SEBI or RBI to collect or deposit by giving offer to the effect that “Your Money Will be Double in Forty Weeks Guaranteed”. Thus, prima facie, it is established that the collection of money by the petitioners under the GBG Nidhi company is against the sanction of law and the intent appears to be to cheat the depositors and to misappropriate their money, prima facie. It is relevant to note that Rs.49,75,82,408/- got deposited and balance as on the date of freezing of the accounts of GBG Nidhi is Rs.11,16,52,807/-. Thus a major portion of the money in the accounts of GBG Nidhi found to be misappropriated, prima facie. Now the following crimes were registered against the petitioners at the instance of the respective complainants, who are the depositors, as reported by the Investigating Officer.
Sl.
No.
Name of Complainant
Cr. No.
Sec. of law
1
Sreemathi B W/o Vijayakumar,
aged.58/23, Shivabhavanam,
21/2023
420 IPC & 3 r/w 21(1)(2), 5 r/w
23 of the BUDS Act
Puthiyadukkam, Bedakam
Village
2
Ramakrishnan T. S/o Ambu, aged.47/23, Edappani House, Edappani, Bedakam Village
22/2023
420 IPC & 3 r/w 21(1)(2), 5 r/w
23 of the BUDS Act
3
Thankamani P W/o C.No.Narayanan, aged.54/23, Edappani House, Edappani, Bedakam Village
23/2023
420 IPC & 3 r/w 21(1)(2), 5 r/w
23 of the BUDS Act
4
Sujith V. S/o Gangadharan, aged.35/23, Badkkikkandam House, Bedakam Village
24-02-23
420 IPC & 3 r/w 21(1)(2), 5 r/w
23 of the BUDS Act
5
Remya C.K. W/o saseendran, aged.34/23, Choolikkad House, Choolikkad, Bedakam Village
25/2023
420 IPC & 3 r/w 21(1)(2), 5 r/w
23 of the BUDS Act
6
Sunil C. S/o K.Raghavan Nair, aged.42/23, Pannadukkamthol House, Bedakam, Bedakam Village
26/2023
420 IPC & 3 r/w 21(1)(2), 5 r/w
23 of the BUDS Act
7
Vijayasree B. W/o Kishore M., aged.28/23, Puthiyadukkam House, Kundamkuzhy, Bedakam Village
27/2023
420 IPC & 3 r/w 21(1)(2), 5 r/w
23 of the BUDS Act
8
Kavya Balan W/o Arun Narayan, 28/2023 aged.25/23, Edappani Parakkadavu House, Parakkadavu, Bedakam Village
28/2023
420 IPC & 3 r/w 21(1)(2), 5 r/w
23 of the BUDS Act
9
Harichandran P. S/o P.Kunhikkoran, aged.48/23, Athira House, Kuliyanmaram, Munnad Village
29/2023
420 IPC & 3 r/w 21(1)(2), 5 r/w
23 of the BUDS Act
10
Jayanandan P. S/o Thamban Nabiar, aged.42/23, Neyyamkayam House, Kanathur,
Muliyar Village
30/2023
420 IPC & 3 r/w 21(1)(2), 5 r/w
23 of the BUDS Act
11
Gopalakrishnan E, S/o. C.Kunhambu Nair, aged 42/23, Edappani House, Kundamkuzy,
Bedakam Village
31/2023
420 IPC & 3 r/w 21(1)(2), 5 r/w
23 of the BUDS Act
12
Sreedharana Nambiar, S/o.T.Kunhikrishnan Nair, aged 74/23, Bedira Vellarikkandam House, Bedira, Kundamkuzhy,
Bedakam Village
32/2023
420 IPC & 3 r/w 21(1)(2), 5 r/w
23 of the BUDS Act
13
Bhaskaran Ma. S/o.Kunhiraman Nair, aged 45/23, Kundamkuzhy House, Kundamkuzhy, Bedakam
Village
34/2023
420 IPC & 3 r/w 21(1)(2), 5 r/w
23 of the BUDS Act
14
Satheesh Kumar C., S/o. Narayanan, aged 42/23, Edappani House, Kundamkuzhy,
Bedakam Village.
34/2023
420 IPC & 3 r/w 21(1)(2), 5 r/w
23 of the BUDS Act
15
Praseeja A., W.O.Vinyakarishnan, aged 31/23, Alinkal House,
Kanjiradukkam, Periya Village
35/2023
420 IPC & 3 r/w 21(1)(2), 5 r/w
23 of the BUDS Act
16
Kamalakshi A., W/o.Sreedharana
Nambiar, aged 67/23, Bedira
36/2023
420 IPC & 3 r/w 21(1)(2), 5 r/w
23 of the BUDS Act
Vellarikkandam House, Bedira, Bedakam Village.
17
Unnikrishnan K., S/o.Shankara Marar, aged 62/23, Chotta House, Chotta, Bedakam Village
37/2023
420 IPC & 3 r/w 21(1)(2), 5 r/w
23 of the BUDS Act
In the report of the Investigating Officer it has been reported that the 1" accused herein-D.Vinod Kumar, the Managing Director and Chairman of the Nidhi and Managing Director of the Bigplus Fin trading private Limited, who is the key accused in this case got involved in various financial crimes and has been facing trial in the following cases : 1) Cr.No.894/2012 (CC 310/2021 of Hon'ble CJM, Kasaragod), 2)Cr.No.810/2011 (CC 76/2020 of Hon'ble CJM, Kasaragod) 3)Cr.No.148/2012 (CC 313/2021 of the Hon'ble CJM, Thalassery) in connection with the Grameena Super Market scam. He also has been facing trial in CC 1289/2021 of the Hon'ble PRL. Civil Judge and JMFC, Uduppi, Karnataka under section 138 of NI Act.
On noticing the history of the case, as discussed, and huge amounts were collected illegally, by giving an impossible offer, the prosecution allegation as to commission of offences punishable under Section 420 IPC, Section 3 r/w Section 21(1)(2), 5 r/w 23 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Scheme Act, 2019 is well established, prima facie. In such a case, arrest, custodial interrogation and recovery of the money collected from various depositors are essentially a part of the investigation, to accomplish meaningful investigation and an eventful prosecution. In such a case, grant of anticipatory bail would spoil the investigation. Therefore, this petition deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed.
It is specifically ordered that the interim order `not to arrest' granted by another learned Judge of this Court stands vacated and the Police is at liberty to arrest and proceed against the petitioners under law, without fail.