Jayarajan K.P. v. State Of Kerala

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE 2015/15TH JYAISHTA, 1937 Bail Appl..No. 2527 of 2015 () ------------------------------- CRIME NO. 70/CR/2014 OF CBCID, EOW- III, KOZHIKODE ----------------------- PETITIONER/ACCUSED :

------------------------------------- JAYARAJAN K.P., AGED 35 YEARS S/O. LATE AYYAPPAN, KARIPARAMBEN HOUSE, VETTILAPPARA MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

BY ADVS.SRI.P.SAMSUDIN SRI.T.PRAVEEN KUMAR RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT :

------------------------------------------------ THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM-682031 (IN CRIME NO. 70/CR/2014 OF CBCID, EOW-III, KOZHIKODE, MALAPPURAM SUB UNIT).

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. DHANESH MATHEW MANJOORAN THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-06-2015, ALONG WITH BA. 2549/2015& CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

Mn

K. ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A. Nos.2527of 2015, 2549 of 2015, 2550 of 2015, 2551 of 2015, 2552 of 2015, 2553 of 2015, 2554 of 2015, 2555 of 2015, 2556 of 2015, 2557 of 2015, 2558 of 2015, 2559 of 2015, 2560 of 2015, 2561 of 2015, 2562 of 2015 and 2563 of 2015 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 5th day of June, 2015 C O M M O N O R D E R Petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C 2.

The petitioner was a General Manager of a company by name V.K.L Diaries Limited which has its head office at Chennai.

3.

The prosecution allegation is that he and the other accused made false promises and collected huge amounts from various persons and invested the amounts in money chain business. They have failed to repay the amounts thus they have committed the offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC and Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Prize Chits Money Circulation Schemes (Banning Act) 4.

Heard.

5.

The amount involved in this case is huge. Several persons were cheated. The submission of the learned counsel that the petitioner was only an employee cannot be accepted. His designation itself shows that he

was involved in the formation of policies and execution of them. To ascertain the exact amount involved in the incident his custodial interrogation is necessary. It is not proper to grant him anticipatory bail.

In the result, these applications are dismissed. sd/- K. ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE R.AV //True Copy// PA to Judge