High CourtsSingle Bench

Thomas Mathew vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 27 August 2021 · Citation: (2021) 08 KL CK 0183

HON’BLE JUDGES
Shircy V, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 — Section 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 120B, 406, 420 · Banning of Unregulated Deposit in Financial Establishment Act, 2013 — Section 3, 21(2), 21(3), 21(4)
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Appl. No. 3869 Of 2021
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

27 paragraphs · 471 words

Shircy V, J

1.

The petitioner who is the third accused in Crime No.217 of 2021 of Nedumbassery Police Station registered for the offences punishable under

Sections 120B, 406 and 420 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 21(2)(3)&(4) r/w Section 3 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit

in Financial Establishment Act, 2013, has moved this application apprehending arrest.

2.

The prosecution allegation is that the first accused has conducted a financial institution by name 'Cheriyath Benefit Fund Nidhi Limited' at Athani

with the other accused as its directors. While so as a result of the criminal conspiracy hatched between them, induced the defacto complainant and

others to deposit money and thus collected an amount of Rs.13 lakhs from various persons and misappropriated the same and thus cheated the

customers by failing to return the amount as promised. Later they closed the company and thus this petitioner and the other accused have committed

the aforesaid offences.

3.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well the learned Public Prosecutor.

4.

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this petitioner has absolutely no connection with the financial institution run by the first accused,

who is his co-brother. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that anticipatory bail has already been granted to accused Nos.2, 4,

5 and 6 by this court.

5.

The learned Public Prosecutor has also admitted that pre-arrest bail has been granted to some of the accused by this court and now the

investigation is going on smoothly.

Having regard to the nature of accusations levelled against the petitioner and the other facts and circumstances involved in this case, I find that

materials are not available on record to show that his presence in custody is inevitable for the investigating agency to proceed with the investigation of

the case. Therefore, this application is allowed subject to the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall be released on bail on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the

satisfaction of the investigating officer in the event of his arrest.

(ii) He shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required by him, in writing.

(iii)Heshall co-operate with the investigation and trial of the case.

(iv) He shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from

disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

(v) He shall not commit any offence while on bail.

Â

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the learned Magistrate is empowered to cancel the bail in accordance with the law.