M.C Kamarudheen vs State Of Kerala And Ors

Applications for regular bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

The applicant in all these three applications for bail is approaching this Court for the second time seeking bail. The applicant is an accused in Crime Nos.150, 121 & 180 of 2020 of SMS (Special Mobile Squad) Police Station, Kasargod. That apart he has also been implicated as an accused in 85 other crimes. The offences punishable are under Sections 406, 409 and 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC, 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 ').

The prosecution case pertains to complaints filed by different depositors for having lost their money deposited with a company named 'Fashion Gold International Private Limited,' Cheruvatoor and its sister concerns, of which the applicant who is a member of legislative assembly, is a Chairman and the 1st accused, is a Managing Director. The 1st accused's son is also an accused in some of the cases, where he is a Director and a person active in managing the affairs of the company. The allegation of the prosecution is that several gullible persons were induced to deposit money in the concerns belonging to the accused persons and all those amounts were dishonestly misappropriated by them and the poor depositors were cheated. The applicant being an MLA and holding an important position in a political party, wielded huge influence on these gullible investors and they relied upon his assurance that the money would be safe with the financial institutions of which he was the Chairman.

The applicant contends that he is innocent and the allegations are not true. He was only a name lender for the company as a Chairman. The companies were run by the other accused and the applicant being an MLA, was mainly stationed in Thiruvananthapuram and visited his native village only for the purpose of the welfare of his subjects. The applicant states that he has no other criminal antecedents apart from these cases which have been registered against him. He has not been actively participated in the affairs of the company, even though there is some evidence regarding his attending the meeting of the companies and the sister concerns. The earlier bail application was dismissed by this Court mainly for the reason that it is an economic fraud and therefore the applicant is not entitled to bail at the nascent stage, where the investigating agency will have to be given more time to delve deep into the alleged act of misappropriation by the accused.

The learned counsel appearing for the applicant and the learned Public Prosecutor were heard.

It is submitted that the applicant has now been in custody for total of 56 days and after the earlier application was filed, 34 days have lapsed. The applicant have been subjected to custodial interrogation several times and therefore no purpose would be served by his further incarceration. It is also submitted that the applicant is suffering from ischemic heart disease, two vessel disease and also suffering from type-2 diabetes mellitus. Detention inprision for a longer time would definitely affect his suffering. He has been cooperating with the investigation. The only apprehension expressed by this Court on the earlier occasion while dismissing the bail was that being an influential person and a political leader, the applicant may attempt to win over the witnesses and influence them, if he is released on bail. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that any stringent conditions may be imposed in case he is released on bail.

The learned Public Prosecutor Sri.Suman Chakravarthy submits that the 1st accused is yet to be arrested. He is abroad and he could not be apprehended for that reason. In case the applicant is released on bail, he is likely to influence the witnesses or tamper with evidence. Hence the applications for bail may be dismissed. It is pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor that there are no change of circumstances, which warrants this Court to take a different view from what was taken in the earlier application for bail.

The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that subsequent to the dismissal of the earlier application, the applicant has been in custody for 34 more days. Documents have been seized further witnesses have been examined and their statements recorded. Under the circumstances, no purpose would be served by further incarceration of the applicant for the reasons stated above.

After having considered the submissions made by both sides anxiously, I find that the applicant has not been invovled in any other crimes apart from these series of misappropriation cases registered against him on the basis of complaints lodged by several depositors. The applicant was a Chairman and he has been subjected to custodial interrogation. The fact that the 1st accused not yet apprehended is not probably a reason to deny him bail. This Court found that further time has to be given for investigation of the case and also subject the applicant to custodial interrogation. In view of the fact that most of the documents have been seized and applicant has been subjected to custodial interrogation, considering his health conditions, I find that the applicant may not be detained any longer. However,considering his position in the society and power to influence, stringent conditions will have to be imposed, in case he is released on bail. Considering the parameters laid down in precedents by the Apex Court in Jayaendra Saraswathi Swamigal v. State of Tamil Nadu [(2005) 2 SCC 13] Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan [(2004) 7SCC 528], State of U.P. Through CBI v. Amaramani Tripathi [(2005) 8 SCC 21] and P.Chidamparam v. CBI [2019 SCC SC 1380], I find no reason to decline bail to the applicant.

Under the circumstances, the applicant is directed to be released on bail in all these three crimes on condition that he shall execute a bond for Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh only) in each of the crimes with two solvent sureties, each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court and on following conditions:-

(i) He shall appear before the investigating officer as and when called for.

(ii) He shall not enter the jurisdiction of the concerned police station for a period of three months except for complying condition No.1.

(iii) He shall not get involved in similar cases during the currency of the bail.

(iv) He shall not tamper with evidence, intimidate or influence the witnesses.

In case of violation of the bail conditions, the prosecution is at liberty to move for cancellation of the bail before the jurisdictional court.