High CourtsSingle Bench

David George vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 27 January 2023 · Citation: (2023) 01 KL CK 0251

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ziyad Rahman A.A., J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 406, 420 · Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019 — Section 3, 4, 5
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 488 Of 2023
Ask AI about this case

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

13 paragraphs · 517 words

Ziyad Rahman A.A., J

1.

This is an application for regular bail.

2.

The petitioner is the 5th accused in Crime No.2098/2022 of Thiruvalla Police station. The offences alleged against the petitioner and other accused are punishable under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act.

3.

The prosecution case is that the accused persons, with the intention to cheat the defacto complainant, induced her to deposit an amount of ₹1,20,000/- in a company name 'PRD MINI NIDHI', with a promise to pay a higher interest rate. Later, the accused failed to pay the returns as offered to the defacto complainant and to refund the money even after the expiry of the said scheme. The petitioner is the Manager of the said financial institution where accused Nos. 1 to 4 are the Directors. The crime was registered in such circumstances, and in connection with the same, the petitioner was arrested on 11.01.2023. This application was filed in such circumstances.

4.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the said application by highlighting that he is involved in 18 other cases.

5.

After going through the records, it is discernible that the other cases in which the petitioner was found involved are with similar allegations. From the materials placed on record, it is evident that the petitioner was the Manager of the financial institution which allegedly collected the amounts from the defacto complainant. However, considering the fact that the petitioner was only one of the employees of the said Company, the possibility of a limited role of the petitioner cannot be ruled out. The petitioner was arrested in this case on 11.01.2023, and it is pointed out that he was arrested much before that, in connection with the other cases. Therefore, further detention of the petitioner appears to be not necessary. Thus, considering all the relevant aspects, I am of the view that bail can be granted to the petitioner subject to the conditions to ensure that he co-operates with the investigation.

In such circumstances, the bail application is allowed. The petitioner is granted bail and is directed to be released on bail subject to the following conditions:

1.

The petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of ₹50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court;

2.

The petitioner shall fully cooperate with the investigation.

3.

The Petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer between 10.00 a.m and 11 a.m. on every Wednesday until the filing of the final report. The petitioner shall also appear before the investigating officer as and when required.

4.

The petitioner shall not commit any offence of similar nature while on bail.

5.

The petitioner shall not attempt to contact any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or through any other person, or any way try to tamper with the evidence or influence any witnesses or other persons related to the investigation.

6.

The petitioner shall not leave the State of Kerala without the permission of the trial Court.