M.Haridasan v. The State Of Kerala

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW MONDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE 2015/8TH ASHADHA, 1937 Bail Appl..No. 3424 of 2015 () ------------------------------- CRIME NO. 70/2014 OF C.B.C.I.D., KOZHIKODE ------------------ PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.14:

----------------------------------------------- M.HARIDASAN S/O.AYYAPPAN, AGED 64 YEARS KUNNATH HOUSE, PALLIKKAL P.O.

PALLIKKAL VILLAGE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

BY ADVS.SRI.BABU S. NAIR SRI.K.RAKESH RESPONDENT/STATE :

---------------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM KOCHI - 682 031 FOR THE DETECTIVE INSPECTOR CRIME BRANCH, ECONOMICS CRIME INVESTIGATION MALAPPURAM SUB UNIT, KOZHIKODE.

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. SREEJITH V.S.

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29-06-2015, ALONG WITH BA. 3426/2015 & CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

Mn

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW, J ----------------------------- B.A.Nos.3424 OF 2015, 3426 OF 2015, 3433 OF 2015, 3434 OF 2015, 3435 OF 2015, 3436 OF 2015, 3437 OF 2015, 3438 OF 2015, 3439 OF 2015, 3440 OF 2015, 3441 OF 2015, 3443 OF 2015, 3445 OF 2015, 3447 OF 2015, 3448 OF 2015 & 3449 OF 2015 ----------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of June, 2015 C O M M O N O R D E R -------------------------- Petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

2.

Petitioner is the 14th accused in all the above cases. He joined VKL Dairies Limited as a promoter. Thereafter, he was working as general manager. 3.

The prosecution case is that without any licence or authority the accused collected huge amount making false promises and they have thus committed the offences under Sections 120(B), 406 and 420 of Indian Penal Code and Section 4, 5, 6 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act.

4.

Heard.

5.

The learned counsel submits that there is no allegation that the petitioner received any cash from any one. That it true. But it is clear from the evidence

B.A.Nos.3424 OF 2015, 3426 OF 2015, 3433 OF 2015, 3434 OF 2015, 3435 OF 2015, 3436 OF 2015, 3437 OF 2015, 3438 OF 2015, 3439 OF 2015, 3440 OF 2015, 3441 OF 2015, 3443 OF 2015, 3445 OF 2015, 3447 OF 2015, 3448 OF 2015 & 3449 OF 2015 collected by the investigating officer that he also made promises to the public and made them invest in the company which did not have the authority to receive deposit from the public. The designation of the Petitioner itself shows that he was one of the policy makers of the company. Prima facie, he is also involved in the commission of the offences. For effective interrogation his detention may be necessary. It is not all proper to grant him anticipatory bail.

In the result, these applications are dismissed. The learned counsel submits that the Petitioner will surrender before the investigating officer. He may do so if he so advised.

sd/- K. ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE R.AV //True Copy// PA to Judge