Jose Thomas vs State Of Kerala

Mohammed Nias C.P.J

The common petitioner in B.A.No.5646/2023, 5651/2023, 5656/2023, 5659/2023 and B.A.No.5668/2023 arising out of Crime Nos.205/2023, 196/2023, Crime No.206/2023, 162/2023 and 195/2023, of Town East Police Station, Thrissur, seeks the relief of pre-arrest bail. In Crime No.206/2023, the petitioner is accused No.4; in Crime No.205/2023, the petitioner is accused No.2; in Crime No.162/2023, the petitioner is accused No.3; in Crime No.196/2023, the petitioner is the 4th accused, while the petitioner the 4th accused in Crime No.195/2023.

In Crime No.205/2023, the prosecution alleges the commission of offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 120 B r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC’ for short hereinafter). The prosecution case is that accused 1 to 9 in this case hatched conspiracy to make unlawful enrichment and to make corresponding loss to the defacto complainant and thereby collected Rs.1.94 Crores on 02.11.2020 with an offer to give dividends. The further allegation is that as part of the conspiracy, the accused herein introduced a business proposal of the 6th accused under the name PRIMEROGLOBAL FIN CORP, CBE, and collected money on that premise.

In Crime No.206/2023, the allegation is the same, and Rs.2.2 crores is the amount alleged to be misappropriated by the accused. In the said case, the prosecution alleges the commission of offences punishable under Section 120(B), 465, 468, 471, 420 r/w 34 of IPC.

In Crime No.162/2023, the allegation is that accused Nos. 1 to 3 hatched a criminal conspiracy and handed over fake purchase orders to the defacto complainant and induced the defacto complainant to advance Rs.1,21,25,000/- (Rupees One Crore Twenty-One Lakhs Twenty-Five Thousand only) to the accused and the accused cheated the defacto complainant and misappropriated the amount. In the said case, the prosecution alleges the commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 462, 471 and 120(b) r/w 34 of IPC.

In Crime No.195/2023, the amount involved therein is Rs.2 crores (Rupees Two Crores only), and in Crime No.196/2023, the amount involved is Rs.55 lakhs. There is a similarity in the allegations against the petitioners.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is a businessman engaged in distributing Cinematographic films. The defacto complainant is a money lender based out of Coimbatore. He does his business in Kerala through A1, one Avinesh Pushkaran. There were some financial transactions between the petitioner and the defacto complainant, and also directly and through Avinesh, and when some dispute arose between them, the petitioner requested for settlement of accounts for which the petitioner and Avinesh were amenable, and they demanded Rs.10 crores towards settlement of accounts. The petitioner had also filed a suit as OS No.242/2022 for a decree for the settlement of accounts between the petitioner, the defacto complainant and Avinesh. The defacto complainant had become enmity after filing the suit, and it is only to wreak vengeance that the aforementioned five complainants were filed.

The learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application and submitted that a proper investigation, including custodial interrogation, is required to reveal the truth. The learned counsel for the defacto complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that the accused nos. 1 to 9 had hatched a conspiracy, collected deposits, and misappropriated their entire money. This Court, in BA Nos. 876 and 886 of 2023 and in B.A. No.8908/2023 and connected cases considered the applications for anticipatory bail application of the other similarly placed accused and, while rejecting the same, found that the transaction included crores of rupees, and thus the arrest and custodial interrogation was needed to unearth the details regarding the way the money was dealt with and where it was siphoned. In such a case, relief of anticipatory bail will stall the investigation. Though the Sessions Court had granted anticipatory bail to the 1st accused, the same was stayed by this Court.

Considering the rival submissions and also noticing the prosecution case, that accused 1 to 9, in this case, hatched a conspiracy to make unlawful enrichment and to make a corresponding loss to the defacto complainant and thereby collected a huge amount with an offer to give a dividend. The further allegation is that the accused herein introduced the business proposal of the 6th accused under the name PRIMEROGLOBAL FIN CORP, CBE, and collected money on that premise as well. The contention of the petitioner is that he has no role in collecting the money and that A1 alone was responsible cannot be accepted. As found by this Court earlier, a proper investigation is required to find out the collection of deposits, the alleged misappropriation, and where the money is parked. The same can be achieved only through a proper investigation.

In such circumstances, I am not inclined to consider the request for anticipatory bail as it will affect a proper investigation. Accordingly, these applications are dismissed.