Kerala High Court
Sandeep vs State Of Kerala on 17 April, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 28TH CHAITHRA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 110 OF 2024
CRIME NO.2685/2023 OF ERNAKULAM SOUTH POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
SANDEEP,
AGED 37 YEARS
MANAGER, SPACE INTERNATIONAL, DD MILESTONE,
KADAVANTHARA, ERNAKULAM CITY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
PERMANENT ADDRESS: MANFILED INTERNATIONAL ,KOMATH LANE,
PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI, PIN - 682024
BY ADVS.
C.D.JOHNY
REJI R.
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ERNAKULAM TOWN POLICE STATION,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682015
ADDL R3 NIMMY P.M.,
AGED 35 YEARS, W/O. ANTONY SUNIL,
KONATHUVEETIL, SOUTH CHITTOR P.O,
CHERANELOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT
ADDL R4 JISMY PAUL,
AGED 31 YEARS, W/O. ALBIN P.O.,
PARAKKADAN HOUSE, OKKAL P.O., ERNAKULAM PIN-683550
ADDL R5 MERIN VARGHESE,
AGED 27 YEARS, W/O. ELDHO BABU, ANJILICKAL HOUSE,
THATHAMPALLY.P.O., ALAPPUZHA, PIN-688013
ADDL R6 AKHILA THANKAPAN,
AGED 33 YEARS, W/O. SHYNE RAJ,
KALAMBATTUKUDY HOUSE, KOTTAPADY P.O.,
BAIL APPL. Nos.110, 243,
245 and 807 OF 2024
2
KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM, PIN-686692
ADDL ATHIRA S.,
R7 AGED 24 YEARS, W/O. BINOOP C.K.,
BIPIN BHAVANAM, IVERKALA WEST,
NORTH PUTHANAMPALA P.O., KOLLAM, PIN-691553
ADDL R3 TO R7 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
29/01/2024 IN CRL MA 2/24.
BY ADVS.
VISHNU DAS
A.RAJASIMHAN
SRUTHI DAS
VYKHARI.K.U
RENJIT GEORGE, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
12.04.2024 ALONG WITH Bail Appl..243/2024, 245/2024 AND
807/2024, THE COURT ON 17.04.2024 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. Nos.110, 243,
245 and 807 OF 2024
3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL 2024/28TH CHAITHRA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 243 OF 2024
CRIME NO.2968/2023 OF ERNAKULAM SOUTH POLICE STATION,
ERNAKULAM
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 & 2:
1 RAJANI V.R.,
AGED 45 YEARS, W/O. SREEPRASAD, T/C 41/1820,
UTHRADAM, ATTUKAL, MANACAD P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695009
2 SREEPRASAD,
AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. SUDHAKARAN, T/C 41/1820,
UTHRADAM, ATTUKAL, MANACAD P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695009
BY ADVS.
THOMAS J.ANAKKALLUNKAL
ANUPA ANNA JOSE KANDOTH
SNEHA ELSA JOSEPH
JAYARAMAN S.
RESPONDENTS/STATE:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
ADDL R2 JISMY PAUL,
AGED 31 YEARS, W/O. ALBIN P.O., PARAKKADAN
HOUSE, OKKAL.P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN-683550
ADDL R3 MERIN VARGHESE,
AGED 27 YEARS, W/O. ELDHO BABU, ANJILICKAL
HOUSE, THATHAMPALLY P.O., ALAPPUZHA, PIN-688013
BAIL APPL. Nos.110, 243,
245 and 807 OF 2024
4
ADDL R4 AKHILA THANKAPAN,
AGED 33 YEARS, W/O. SHYNE RAJ,
KALAMBATTUKUDY HOUSE, KOTTAPADY P.O.,
KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM, PIN-686692
ADDL R5 ATHIRA.S.,
AGED 24 YEARS, W/O.BINOOP.C.K., BIPIN BHAVANAM,
IVERKALA WEST, NORTH PUTHANAMPALA.P.O., KOLLAM,
PIN-691553
(ADDL R2 TO R5 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
29/1/24 IN CRL MA 1/24)
BY ADVS.
A.RAJASIMHAN
VYKHARI.K.U
M.P.PRASANTH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
12.04.2024, ALONG WITH CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON
17.04.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. Nos.110, 243,
245 and 807 OF 2024
5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL 2024/28TH CHAITHRA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 245 OF 2024
CRIME NO.2685/2023 OF ERNAKULAM SOUTH POLICE STATION,
ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3:
SREEPRASAD,
AGED 55 YEARS
S/O. SUDHAKARAN, T/C 41/1820, UTHRADAM,
ATTUKAL, MANACAD P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695009
BY ADVS.
THOMAS J.ANAKKALLUNKAL
JAYARAMAN S.
ANUPA ANNA JOSE KANDOTH
SNEHA ELSA JOSEPH
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
ADDL R2 NIMMY P.M.,
AGED 35 YEARS, W/O. ANTONY SUNIL,
KONATHUVEETIL, SOUTH CHITTOR P.O.,
CHERANELOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682027
ADDL R3 JISMY PAUL,
AGED 31 YEARS, W/O. ALBIN P.O., PARAKKADAN
HOUSE, OKKAL P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN-683550
ADDL R4 MERIN VARGHESE,
AGED 27 YEARS, W/O. ELDHO BABU, ANJILICKAL
HOUSE, THATHAMPALLY P.O., ALAPPUZHA, PIN-688013
BAIL APPL. Nos.110, 243,
245 and 807 OF 2024
6
ADDL R5 AKHILA THANKAPAN,
AGED 33 YEARS, W/O. SHYNE RAJ, KALAMBATTUKUDY
HOUSE, KOTTAPADY P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM,
ERNAKULAM, PIN-686692
ADDL R6 ATHIRA S.,
AGED 24 YEARS, W/O. BINOOP C.K.,
BIPIN BHAVANAM, IVERKALA WEST, NORTH
PUTHANAMPALA P.O., KOLLAM, PIN-691553
(ADDL R2 TO R6 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
29/1/24 IN CRL MA 2/24)
BY ADVS.
VISHNU DAS
A.RAJASIMHAN
SRUTHI DAS
VYKHARI.K.U
M.P.PRASANTH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
12.04.2024, ALONG WITH CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON
17.04.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. Nos.110, 243,
245 and 807 OF 2024
7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL 2024/28TH CHAITHRA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 807 OF 2024
CRIME NO.2968/2023 OF OF ERNAKULAM SOUTH POLICE STATION,
ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER:
SANDEEP,
AGED 37 YEARS, MANAGER, SPACE INTERNATIONAL,
DD MILESTONE, KADAVANTHARA, ERNAKULAM CITY,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PERMANENT ADDRESS: MANFILED
INTERNATIONAL, KOMATH LANE, PALARIVATTOM,
KOCHI, PIN - 682024
BY ADVS.
C.D.JOHNY
REJI R.
RESPONDENTS/STATE:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
ERNAKULAM TOWN POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 682015
M.P.PRASANTH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
12.04.2024, ALONG WITH CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON
17.04.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. Nos.110, 243,
245 and 807 OF 2024
8
COMMON ORDER
Dated this the 17th day of April, 2024
These anticipatory bail applications have been filed
under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908.
2. B.A.No.807/2024 is at the instance of the 3 rd
accused, Sri.Sandeep in crime No.2968/2023 of Ernakulam
Town South Police Station. B.A.No.110/2024 is also at the
instance of the above said Sandeep, who got arrayed as the
1st accused in crime No.2685/2023 of Ernakulam Town South
Police Station.
3. B.A.No.243/2024 has been filed at the instance of
Rajani V.R. and Sreeprasad, who are accused Nos.1 and 2
in crime No.2968/2023, where Sandeep got arrayed as the
3rd accused. B.A.No.245/2024 is one filed by Sreeprasad,
who got arrayed as the 3rd accused in crime No.2685/2023,
where Sandeep got arrayed as the 1st accused.
BAIL APPL. Nos.110, 243,
245 and 807 OF 2024
4. Heard the learned Senior Counsel,
Adv.P.Vijayabhanu, Adv.Thomas J.Anakkallunkal, Adv.Johny
C.D. for the petitioners, Sri.M.P.Prasanth, the learned Public
Prosecutor and Sri.A.Rajasimhan, learned counsel for the
respective defacto complainant/s in both crimes on
12.04.2024 and these matters reserved for orders.
5. Perused the relevant documents form part of the
case diaries, the averments in the petitions and the
averments in the counter affidavit filed by the defacto
complainant/s, at part with the arguments advanced.
5. In crime No.2968/2023, the prosecution
allegations is that accused Nos.1 to 4, viz., Rajani V.R.,
Sreeprasad, Sandeep and Blessy Varghese, with intention to
cheat and defraud the defacto complainant and her friends,
so as to make unlawful enrichment and to make
corresponding loss to the defacto complainant and her
friends, offered job VISA of Caregivers/Care Assistant in UK
BAIL APPL. Nos.110, 243,
245 and 807 OF 2024
under the banner 'SPACE International', where the 1 st
accused is the licensee, the 2nd accused is the owner and 3rd
and 4th accused are the Managers. Accordingly, they
obtained Rs.14 lakh each, on 22.12.2023 and 27.12.2023,
from the defacto complainant/s, Akhila Thankappan, Athira S
and Merin Varghese. The specific allegation is that the said
amount, coming to a total sum of Rs.56 lakh, was encashed
through the account of the 3rd accused. The further allegation
is that they have forged COS letter in this connection. On the
above facts, the accused herein alleged to have committed
offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 468 and
471 read with Section 34 of IPC.
6. In crime No.2685/2023, the allegation is same, but
the defacto complainant is only one. The prosecution alleges
that accused Nos.1 to 3 obtained Rs.14 lakh from the defacto
complainant through the account of the 1 st accused on
28.12.2022 and 12.01.2023 with an offer to provide VISA as
BAIL APPL. Nos.110, 243,
245 and 807 OF 2024
dealt in crime No.2968/2023 and cheated the defacto
complainant after obtaining Rs.14 lakh from her. Thus, crime
alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections
406 and 420 read with Section 34 of IPC was registered,
against accused Nos.1 to 3 in this crime.
7. While canvassing anticipatory bail, Rajani V.R.
and Sreeprasad, who are accused Nos.1 and 2 in crime
No.2968/2023 and Sreeprasad, who is the 3 rd accused in
crime No.2685/2023, the learned senior counsel would
submit that in both crimes, the above persons have no
role as per the materials available and 'SPACE
international Travel Services' is owned and manned by
Rajani V.R. and Sreeprasad and they have no direct
involvement in the matter of collection of money by accused
Nos.3 and 4 in crime No.2968/2023 and accused Nos.
1 and 2 in crime No.2685/2023. It is submitted by the
learned counsel that accused Nos.3 and 4 in crime
No.2968/2023 were dismissed from the company due
BAIL APPL. Nos.110, 243,
245 and 807 OF 2024
to misappropriation of funds and foul play they have done
during their tenure in the company for unlawful gain.
Thereafter also, accused Nos.3 and 4 left the petitioner
company and some complaints received from the candidates
that 'SPACE International Travel Services' belonged to the 3 rd
accused took money from them and misappropriated. It is
also pointed out that the 2nd accused lodged complaint
against the 3rd accused on 17.08.2023 at Ernakulam Town
South Police Station for misappropriation of funds by the 3 rd
accused in crime No.2968/2023. Accordingly, the learned
counsel pressed for anticipatory bail to them.
8. Similarly, learned counsel appearing for the other
accused would submit that they have bonafidely collected
money with intention to provide job VISA and they had no
intention to cheat and defraud the defacto complainants in
any manner. According to him, the amounts collected were
entrusted to one Rupesh Kumar for providing VISA and it
BAIL APPL. Nos.110, 243,
245 and 807 OF 2024
was thereafter noticed that, after collecting money,
Mr.Rupesh Kumar, who manned Ray Seven Education
Agency, created recruitment agency with fake job
opportunities in UK, after taking huge amounts from the
candidates and other associates and thereby cheated the
defacto complainants and the petitioners. He also pointed out
that in this regard Central Crime Station, Basheerbag,
Hyderabad registered crime against Rupesh Kumar and his
concern. It was also pointed out that so far Rs.7 lakh each,
were returned to the defacto complainants.
9. Zealously opposing bail, the learned counsel for
the defacto complainant/s, who filed a very detailed counter
affidavit, mainly contended that when there are prima facie
materials, in cases involving conspiracy to cheat and defraud
the defacto complainants alleging economic offences having
deproved conspiracies, grant of anticipatory bail will defeat
the purpose of investigation. He also submitted that when
BAIL APPL. Nos.110, 243,
245 and 807 OF 2024
misappropriation of huge amount of money is involved, care
must be given in order to ensure that effective investigation
shall not either be stalled or destroyed by granting pre-arrest
bail.
10. In support of this contention, the learned counsel
placed a decision of this Court in Rajeev A.R. v. State of
Kerala reported in 2023(2) KHC 620 and order in
B.A.No.4060/2023 dated 14.11.2023, following the ratio in
Rajeev A.R's case (supra).
11. Similarly, decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Jagam Mohan Reddy Y.S. v. Central Bureau of
Investigation reported in 2013 KHC 4402, with reference to
paragraph No.15 of the judgment, wherein it is held as under:
"15. Economic offences constitute a class apart
and need to be visited with a different approach in
the matter of bail. The economic offence having
deep rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of
public funds needs to be viewed seriously and
considered as grave offences affecting the
economy of the country as a whole and thereby
posing serious threat to the financial health of the
country."
BAIL APPL. Nos.110, 243,
245 and 807 OF 2024
12. Another decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement reported
in 2019 KHC 6886 has been referred, mentioning paragraph
No.73 of the above judgment. Paragraph No.73 reads as
under:
"73. Observing that the arrest is a part of the
investigation intended to secure several purposes,
in Adri Dharan Das v. State of W.B. (2005 KHC 628
: 2005 (4) SCC 303 2005 (2) KLT SN 27 : 2005 (2)
KLJ 356 AIR 2005 SC 1057 : 2005 (1) KLD 480 :
2005 CriLJ 1706), it was held as under:
"19. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of the process of
investigation intended to secure several purposes.
The accused may have to be questioned in detail
regarding various facets of motive, preparation,
commission and aftermath of the crime and the
connection of other persons, if any, in the crime.
There may be circumstances in which the accused
may provide information leading to discovery of
material facts. It may be necessary to curtail his
freedom in order to enable the investigation to
proceed without hindrance and to protect witnesses
and persons connected with the victim of the crime,
to prevent his disappearance, to maintain law and
order in the locality. For these or other reasons,
arrest may become an inevitable part of the process
of investigation. The legality of the proposed arrest
cannot be gone into in an application under S.438
of the Code. The role of the investigator is well
defined and the jurisdictional scope of interference
by the court in the process of investigation is
BAIL APPL. Nos.110, 243,
245 and 807 OF 2024
limited. The court ordinarily will not interfere with the
investigation of a crime or with the arrest of the
accused in a cognizable offence. An interim order
restraining arrest, if passed while dealing with an
application under S.438 of the Code will amount to
interference in the investigation, which cannot, at
any rate, be done under S.438 of the Code."
13. It is specifically pointed out by the learned counsel
for the defacto complainants that the damage done by the
accused herein to the respective defacto complainants is not
curable by any means. According to him, the defacto
complainants are not only aggrieved in the matter of loss of
money to the tune of Rs.14 lakh each, but they were given
forged Sponsorship certificate, offer letter and rental
agreement. In turn, UK authorities imposed 10 years ban on
the defacto complainants to UK and the said ban is still
continuing. Therefore, the defacto complainants are not in a
position to go for job in UK for 10 years because of the overt
acts at the instance of the petitioners. In such circumstances,
arrest, custodial interrogation and recovery of relevant
materials are inevitable, in these crimes, and grant of pre-
BAIL APPL. Nos.110, 243,
245 and 807 OF 2024
arrest bail would defeat the investigation.
14. In paragraph No.2 of the counter affidavit filed in
B.A.No.243/2024, the hazards based on the respective
annexures have been narrated as under:
"2. It is a huge scam where the accused advertised
for hiring for UK in the Senior Carer/Care Givers
through its official intagram and facebook accounts
and collected Rs. 14.35 lakh each from 34
candidates including us. As per the Emigration
Rules, 1983 the accused agency could collect
Rs.30,000/- alone for each recruitment. After
collecting the above amount they gave us forged
sponsorship certificates, offer letter and rental
agreement etc. and thus caused travel ban for 10
years. True copies of the above advertisements are
produced herewith and marked as Annexure R2(a).
The accused together made us to execute
Undertaking/Self Declaration forms and true copies
of the same are produced herewith and marked as
Annexure R2(b), (c), (d) and (e). True copies of the
forged Certificates of Sponsorship details issued to
us by the accused are produced herewith and
marked as Annexure R2(f), (g) (h) and (i). True
copies of the forged offer letters issued to us by the
accused are produced herewith and marked as
Annexure R2(j), (k), (l) and (m). Apart from that the
accused gave us forged rental agreements also.
Under the guise of priority visa the accused
obtained Rs. 000. True copy of the ban letters are
produced herewith and marked as Annexure R2(n),
(0), (p) and (q)."
BAIL APPL. Nos.110, 243,
245 and 807 OF 2024
15. On perusal of Annexure R2(n), R2(o), R2(p) and
R2(q), issued from the Home Office Web www.gov.uk/ukvi, it
is discernible that R2(n) was issued to Jismy Paul intimating
that her application for Skilled Worker Health and Care
Migrant dated 09.01.2023 was refused and it was informed
as under:
"Your application is therefore refused under
Paragraphs 9.7.1 (a) and 9.7.2 of the Immigration
Rules part 9 in line with Paragraph SW 2.1 of the
Immigration Rules Appendix Skilled Worker."
xxx (omitted)
"You should note that because this application for
entry clearance has been refused under
paragraphs 9.7.1 (a) and 9.7.2 of the Immigration
Rules, any future applications may also be refused
under paragraphs 9.8.1 (a) and 9.8.4 (b) of the
Immigration Rules. A refusal under paragraphs
9.8.1 (a) and 9.8.4 (b) of the Immigration Rules
attracts an automatic refusal period of up to 10
years. The period starts from the date of this refusal
notice".
16. Similar letters were issued to Merin Varghese,
Akhila Thankappan and Athira Sobha as per Annexure R2(o)
to R2(q).
BAIL APPL. Nos.110, 243,
245 and 807 OF 2024
17. It is argued by the learned counsel for Rajani V.R.
and Sreeprasad that they have no role in collecting money by
the other accused, who cheated the defacto complainants by
receiving money. It is submitted further that 'SPACE
International Travel Services' is an authorised institution
having license, obtained by Rajani V.R. and owned by
Sreeprasad and they have been doing the business of job
recruitment with bonafides and no complaints so far raised by
anybody.
18. Adverting to this contention, the learned counsel
for the defacto complainant would submit that in the FIS in
crime No.2968/2023, the roles of Rajani V.R. and
Sreeprasad were specifically stated and the records would
go to show that the recruitment was at the instance of
'SPACE International Travel Services' licensed by Rajani
V.R. and owned by Sreeprasad. Therefore, their complicity
in these crimes is at par with the other accused.
BAIL APPL. Nos.110, 243,
245 and 807 OF 2024
19. On perusal of the materials available to consider
whether the petitioners herein deserve anticipatory bail,
prima facie, 14 lakh each were collected from respective
defacto complainants and others, with offer to provide job of
'Skilled Worker Health and Care Migrant' and thereafter, the
accused herein failed to provide the job as agreed, instead,
fake documents were given, which in turn, led to imposition
of travel ban to the aggrieved persons as already discussed.
The travel ban for ten years is still continuing. They have
returned Rs.7 lakh thereafter, after retaining the remaining
amount. It is submitted on 12.04.2024 that Rs.25,000/- each
were also returned back.
20. Even though accused Nos.1 and 2 in crime
No.2968/2023 raised plea of innocence by attributing the
overt acts on the shoulders of other accused, it is discernible
from the FIS in crime No.2968/2023, the involvement of
Rajani V.R. and Sreeprasad were mentioned. Apart from
BAIL APPL. Nos.110, 243,
245 and 807 OF 2024
that, when a complaint was lodged by the aggrieved persons
before the police, Sreeprasad and Sandeep appeared and
ensured return of money. Thus, the role of Sreeprasad in this
crime could not be read in segregation from Sandeep and
Blessy. However, it appears that no active participation in
these occurrences at the instance of Rajani V.R. though she
is the licensee of 'SPACE International Travel Services' and
the business is manned by Sreeprasad. So reading the
complicity of Rajani V.R. in isolation with the other accused,
she can be enlarged on anticipatory bail while disallowing the
anticipatory bail plea at the instance of the other accused.
Sandeep and Blessy would contend that they bonafidely
received the amount, but they were cheated by 'Ray Seven
Education Agency' at the instance of Rupesh Kumar. In fact,
those explanations would not wipe out the culpability of the
other accused persons. That apart, the trauma created by the
overt acts of the other accused, by providing fake
BAIL APPL. Nos.110, 243,
245 and 807 OF 2024
documents, which resulted in travel ban of 10 years to the
aggrieved persons is a matter of serious concern. Therefore,
this is a case wherein amount of cheating, falsification of
documents and using the same as genuine etc. are matters
which would require detailed investigation after custodial
interrogation. In such cases, grant of anticipatory bail would
defeat the purpose of investigation and the investigation is
not effectively going on for the last 4 months since these
anticipatory bail applications have been pending from
09.01.2024 and there has been an interim order not to arrest
the petitioners granted by my learned predecessor on
29.01.2024.
21. In view of the above discussion, all bail
applications, except the anticipatory bail plea of the 1st
accused in crime No.2968/2023, are liable to fail and are
dismissed and the interim order shall stand vacated with
liberty to the Investigating Officer to go with the investigation
BAIL APPL. Nos.110, 243,
245 and 807 OF 2024
as per law. The other petitioners (except Rajani V.R.) are
directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer within
seven days and cooperate with the investigation in
accordance with law.
B.A.No.243/2024 stands allowed in part granting
anticipatory bail to Rajani V.R.,the 1 st accused on imposing
conditions:
i. The 1st accused in crime No.2968 of
2023/Rajani V.R. shall surrender before the
Investigating Officer within ten days from
today and on such surrender, the
Investigating Officer can question her and
record statement. In the event of her arrest,
the Investigating Officer shall produce Rajani
V.R. before the Jurisdictional Court on the
date of arrest itself.
ii. On such production, Jurisdictional Court
shall release Rajani V.R. on bail, on
executing bond for Rs.30,000/- (Rupees
thirty thousand) by herself and by two
solvent sureties, each for the like sum to the
satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Court.
iii. The 1st accused in crime No.2968 of
2023/Rajani V.R. shall co-operate with
investigation and shall be made available for
interrogation and for the purpose of
BAIL APPL. Nos.110, 243,
245 and 807 OF 2024
investigation, as and when the Investigating
Officer directs so.
iv. The 1st accused in crime No.2968 of
2023/Rajani V.R. shall not leave India
without prior permission of the jurisdictional
court.
v. The 1st accused in crime No.2968 of
2023/Rajani V.R. shall not, intimidate the
witnesses or interfere with the investigation
in any manner.
vi. The 1st accused in crime No.2968 of
2023/Rajani V.R. shall not commit any
offence during the currency of this bail and
any such involvement is a reason to cancel
the bail hereby granted.
Sd/-
A. BADHARUDEEN
JUDGE
nkr
