High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2011-11-24Bail applications allowed with stringent condit...

Abdul Arshad and Kunhumuhammed v. State (Bail Appl. Nos. 9485 of 2011 and connected cases)

Case / Petition Number:Bail Appl. No. 9485 of 2011 and connected cases

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K.T. Sankaran, J.
Judgment Date: 2011-11-24
Court Decision / Holding: Bail Application Nos.9495, 9705, 9719, 9721, 9732, 9733, 9743, 9744, 9745, 9746, 9747 and 9758 of 2011 were dismissed as infructuous. The remaining Bail Applications, including Bail Appl. No. 9485 of 2011 and connected cases, were allowed in the manner indicated: the petitioners to be released on bail with effect from 6.12.2011 on executing bonds of Rs. 50,000 in each case with two solvent sureties, and subject to conditions (reporting to specified officers on given days, appearance for interrogation, surrender of passports, no travel outside Kerala without permission, no witness tampering, and no prejudicial activity; breach could cancel bail).
Final Disposition: Bail applications allowed with stringent conditions (from 6.12.2011) for the petitioners; 12 applications dismissed as infructuous; other applications disposed as per the stated conditions and order dated 24 November 2011.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Abdul Arshad
P. T. Kunhumuhammed

Respondents

State of Kerala, represented by the Detective Inspector, CBCID (EOW), Kozhikode, through Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala; ADGP S. K. I. Abdul Rasheed (as noted in the document)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. Babu S. Nair (Advocate for the petitioners)

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a consolidated High Court of Kerala bail decision (Single Judge) involving 58 bail applications filed by Abdul Arshad and Kunhumuhammed, accused in multiple cases under IPC section 420 and the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978. The petitioners were detained since 11.06.2011, and the court convened on 24.11.2011 to consider all connected bail pleas. The prosecution contends that the scale of alleged deception—investors cheated through a purported share-cum-supermarket venture by Bizarre Global Marketing Public Limited—necessitates continued custody to safeguard the investigation, with cases distributed among CBCID (EOW-III) Kozhikode, Ernakulam, and Kottayam, and some transferred to the Crime Detachment, Thrissur. The petitioners’ counsel argues that the investigation is largely parallel across cases and that prolonged custody without the benefit of default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC would be unconstitutional, especially given the uniformity of charges. The court acknowledges ongoing investigation and the breadth of the alleged fraud, but ultimately grants bail to the petitioners with stringent conditions to commence from 6.12.2011, including bond, two solvent sureties, periodic reporting to different police officers, surrender of passports, travel restrictions, non-interference with witnesses, and other conditions. A subset of applications (those listed as infructuous) was dismissed. The hearing references prior Kerala decisions but ultimately frames a fresh bail order aimed at balancing investigative needs with the petitioners’ liberty.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)Proviso to Section 167(2) CrPCSection 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)Sections 3 and 4 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 (Central Act No. 43 of 1978)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners’ counsel contended that they have been in judicial custody since 11.06.2011 across numerous cases, with nearly identical factual and legal issues. The argument favored by counsel stressed the length of custody without default bail under the proviso to Section 167(2) CrPC and urged the Court to grant bail on stringent conditions, arguing that continued detention would unduly prejudice the petitioners and that the investigation—though extensive—would benefit from the petitioners’ cooperation and a controlled release pending charge framing. It was emphasized that the crimes center on a common scheme and that alternative arrangements for consolidated investigation should prevent undue delay and preserve evidence. The counsel also highlighted the social impact of the alleged fraud and urged judicial intervention to prevent disproportionate confinement while ensuring adequate safeguards for witnesses and the investigation.

Contentions of Respondents

The prosecution argued that the scale and nature of the alleged deception—inducing more than a lakh investors via a money-multiplication scheme disguised as a share-cum-supermarket venture—necessitates prolonged custody to protect the integrity of the investigation. The prosecution asserted that the cases have been distributed among CBCID units across Kozhikode, Ernakulam, and Kottayam, with further transfers to Thrissur, to manage the investigation efficiently. Releasing the petitioners on bail at this stage could impede witness protection, evidence preservation, and the investigative process, potentially hindering the smooth filing of charges. In sum, the state contended that stringent bail conditions could not substitute for custody in view of the breadth, complexity, and cross-jurisdictional nature of the alleged fraud.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Abdul Arshad v. State of Kerala	2011 (3) KLT 796	Mentioned Only	Cited to reference prior bail orders involving Abdul Arshad; used as background context rather than as binding authority for the present decision.
Abdul Arshad v. State of Kerala	2011 (4) KLT 297	Mentioned Only	Cited for historical context of earlier disposals in related bail matters; no substantive doctrinal reliance stated in the excerpt.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Abdul Arshad and Kunhumuhammed v. State (Bail Appl. Nos. 9485 of 2011 and connected cases) and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 9485 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.190/CR/11 OF CBCID (EOW), KOZHIKODE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.2 & 3: ---------------------------------------- 1. ABDUL ARSHAD, S/O.SYED MUHAMMED, KOUSALLYA NAGAR, DESABHIMANI ROAD, ELAMAKKARA, COCHIN, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. P.T.KUNHUMUHAMMED, S/O.KUNHALAN, POOVANTHODI HOUSE, VATTALLUR, MAKKARAPARAMBU, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENT(S): STATE -------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DETECTIVE INSPECTOR, C.B.C.I.D.(EOW), KOZHIKODE - THROUGH THE PUBIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31. ADGP SRI.K.I.ABDUL RASHEED THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/11/2011, ALONG WITH 9459/2011 AND OTHERS, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ## **K.T.SANKARAN, J.** **-----------------------------------------------------Bail Appl. NOS.9459, 9460, 9485, 9486, 9487, 9488, 9489, 9490, 9491, 9492, 9493, 9494, 9495, 9496, 9497, 9498, 9499, 9500, 9501, 9704, 9705, 9706, 9707, 9708, 9709, 9711, 9712, 9713, 9714, 9715, 9716, 9717, 9718, 9719, 9720, 9721, 9732, 9733, 9734, 9735, 9736, 9737, 9738, 9739, 9740, 9741, 9743, 9744, 9745, 9746, 9747, 9748, 9749,9750,9751,9758,9759 & 9760 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------------------** **Dated this the 24[th] day of November, 2011** ## **O R D E R** The aforesaid 58 Bail Applications are filed by Abdul Arshad and Kunhumuhammed or by Kunhumuhammed alone, under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They are the accused in several crimes registered at different police stations. The details regarding Bail Application number, Crime number and the names of the petitioners therein are shown below for easy reference. |**_Sl.No._**|**_Bail.Appl.No._**|**_Crime No._**|**_Name of petitioners_**| |---|---|---|---| |1|9459/2011|199/2011 of Perumbadappu Police Station|Abdul Arshad and P.T.Kunhumuhammed| |2|9460/2011|200/2011 of Perumbadappu Police Station|Abdul Arshad and P.T.Kunhumuhammed| |3|9485/2011|190/CR/11 of CBCID (EOW), Kozhikode|Abdul Arshad and P.T.Kunhumuhammed| ## B.A. NO.9485 OF 2011 AND CONNECTED CASES :: 2 :: |**_Sl.No._**|**_Bail.Appl.No._**|**_Crime No._**|**_Name of petitioners_**| |---|---|---|---| |4|9486/2011|203/2011 of Vengara Police Station|Abdul Arshad and P.T.Kunhumuhammed| |5|9487/2011|218/2011 of Kalpakanchery Police Station|P.T.Kunhumuhammed| |6|9488/2011|327/2011 of Ponnani Police Station|Abdul Arshad and P.T.Kunhumuhammed| |7|9489/2011|459/2011 of Tirur Police Station|Abdul Arshad and P.T.Kunhumuhammed| |8|9490/2011|339/2011 of Malappuram Police Station|Abdul Arshad and P.T.Kunhumuhammed| |9|9491/2011|263/2011 of Areacode Police Station|Abdul Arshad and P.T.Kunhumuhammed| |10|9492/2011|334/2011 of Malappuram Police Station|Abdul Arshad and P.T.Kunhumuhammed| |11|9493/2011|191/R/11 of CBCID (EOW), Kozhikode|Abdul Arshad and P.T.Kunhumuhammed| |12|9494/2011|207/2011 of Vengara Police Station|Abdul Arshad and P.T.Kunhumuhammed| |13|9495/2011|194/CR/11 of CBCID (EOW), Kozhikode|Abdul Arshad and P.T.Kunhumuhammed| |14|9496/2011|153/2011 of Changaramkulam Police Station|Abdul Arshad and P.T.Kunhumuhammed| |15|9497/2011|519/2011 of Tanur Police Station|Abdul Arshad and P.T.Kunhumuhammed| |16|9498/2011|195/CR/11 of CBCID (EOW), Kozhikode|Abdul Arshad and P.T.Kunhumuhammed| |17|9499/2011|189/CR/11 of CBCID (EOW), Kozhikode|Abdul Arshad and P.T.Kunhumuhammed| |18|9500/2011|244/2011 of Kuttipuram Police Station|P.T.Kunhumuhammed| |19|9501/2011|187/CR/11 of CBCID (EOW), Kozhikode|Abdul Arshad and P.T.Kunhumuhammed| |20|9704/2011|839/CR/11 of CBCID (EOW- III), Kozhikode|Abdul Arshad and P.T.Kunhumuhammed| ## B.A. NO.9485 OF 2011 AND CONNECTED CASES :: 3 :: |**_Sl.No._**|**_Bail.Appl.No._**|**_Crime No._**|**_Name of petitioners_**| |---|---|---|---| |21|9705/2011|186/CR/11 of CBCID(EOW- III), Kozhikode|Abdul Arshad and P.T.Kunhumuhammed| |22|9706/2011|842/CR/11 of CBCID(EOW- III), Kozhikode|Abdul Arshad and P.T.Kunhumuhammed| |23|9707/2011|836/CR/11 of CBCID(EOW- III), Kozhikode|Abdul Arshad and P.T.Kunhumuhammed| |24|9708/2011|838/CR/11 of CBCID(EOW- III), Kozhikode|Abdul Arshad and P.T.Kunhumuhammed| |25|9709/2011|468/CR/11 of CBCID(EOW- III), Kozhikode|Abdul Arshad and P.T.Kunhumuhammed| |26|9711/2011|851/CR/11 of CBCID(EOW- III), Kozhikode|Abdul Arshad and P.T.Kunhumuhammed| |27|9712/2011|852/CR/11 of CBCID(EOW- III), Kozhikode|Abdul Arshad and P.T.Kunhumuhammed| |28|9713/2011|850/CR/11 of CBCID(EOW- III), Kozhikode|Abdul Arshad and P.T.Kunhumuhammed| |29|9714/2011|853/CR/11 of CBCID(EOW- III), Kozhikode|Abdul Arshad and P.T.Kunhumuhammed| |30|9715/2011|848/CR/11 of CBCID(EOW- III), Kozhikode|Abdul Arshad and P.T.Kunhumuhammed| |31|9716/2011|535/CR/11 of CBCID(EOW- III), Kozhikode|Abdul Arshad and P.T.Kunhumuhammed| |32|9717/2011|532/CR/11 of CBCID(EOW- III), Kozhikode|Abdul Arshad and P.T.Kunhumuhammed| |33|9718/2011|840/CR/11 of CBCID(EOW- III), Kozhikode|Abdul Arshad and P.T.Kunhumuhammed| |34|9719/2011|190/CR/11 of CBCID(EOW- III), Kozhikode|Abdul Arshad and P.T.Kunhumuhammed| |35|9720/2011|858/CR/11 of CBCID(EOW- III), Kozhikode|Abdul Arshad and P.T.Kunhumuhammed| |36|9721/2011|191/CR/11 of CBCID(EOW- III), Kozhikode|Abdul Arshad and P.T.Kunhumuhammed| |37|9732/2011|189/CR/11 of CBCID(EOW- III), Kozhikode|Abdul Arshad and P.T.Kunhumuhammed| ## B.A. NO.9485 OF 2011 AND CONNECTED CASES :: 4 :: |**_Sl.No._**|**_Bail.Appl.No._**|**_Crime No._**|**_Name of petitioners_**| |---|---|---|---| |38|9733/2011|188/CR/11 of CBCID(EOW- III), Kozhikode|Abdul Arshad and P.T.Kunhumuhammed| |39|9734/2011|442/CR/11 of CBCID(EOW- III), Kozhikode|Abdul Arshad and P.T.Kunhumuhammed| |40|9735/2011|841/CR/11 of CBCID(EOW- III), Kozhikode|Abdul Arshad and P.T.Kunhumuhammed| |41|9736/2011|437/CR/11 of CBCID(EOW- III), Kozhikode|Abdul Arshad and P.T.Kunhumuhammed| |42|9737/2011|531/CR/11 of CBCID(EOW- III), Kozhikode|Abdul Arshad and P.T.Kunhumuhammed| |43|9738/2011|835/CR/11 of CBCID(EOW- III), Kozhikode|Abdul Arshad and P.T.Kunhumuhammed| |44|9739/2011|849/CR/11 of CBCID(EOW- III), Kozhikode|Abdul Arshad and P.T.Kunhumuhammed| |45|9740/2011|854/CR/11 of CBCID(EOW- III), Kozhikode|Abdul Arshad and P.T.Kunhumuhammed| |46|9741/2011|846/CR/11 of CBCID(EOW- III), Kozhikode|Abdul Arshad and P.T.Kunhumuhammed| |47|9743/2011|184/CR/11 of CBCID(EOW- III), Kozhikode|Abdul Arshad and P.T.Kunhumuhammed| |48|9744/2011|182/CR/11 of CBCID(EOW- III), Kozhikode|Abdul Arshad and P.T.Kunhumuhammed| |49|9745/2011|183/CR/11 of CBCID(EOW- III), Kozhikode|Abdul Arshad and P.T.Kunhumuhammed| |50|9746/2011|185/CR/11 of CBCID(EOW- III), Kozhikode|Abdul Arshad and P.T.Kunhumuhammed| |51|9747/2011|206/CR/11 of CBCID(EOW- III), Kozhikode|Abdul Arshad and P.T.Kunhumuhammed| |52|9748/2011|537/CR/11 of CBCID(EOW- III), Kozhikode|Abdul Arshad and P.T.Kunhumuhammed| |53|9749/2011|837/CR/11 of CBCID(EOW- III), Kozhikode|Abdul Arshad and P.T.Kunhumuhammed| |54|9750/2011|847/CR/11 of CBCID(EOW- III), Kozhikode|Abdul Arshad and P.T.Kunhumuhammed| ## B.A. NO.9485 OF 2011 AND CONNECTED CASES :: 5 :: |**_Sl.No._**|**_Bail.Appl.No._**|**_Crime No._**|**_Name of petitioners_**| |---|---|---|---| |55|9751/2011|855/CR/11 of CBCID(EOW- III), Kozhikode|Abdul Arshad and P.T.Kunhumuhammed| |56|9758/2011|187/CR/11 of CBCID(EOW- III), Kozhikode|Abdul Arshad and P.T.Kunhumuhammed| |57|9759/2011|444/CR/11 of CBCID(EOW- III), Kozhikode|Abdul Arshad and P.T.Kunhumuhammed| |58|9760/2011|443/CR/11 of CBCID(EOW- III), Kozhikode|Abdul Arshad and P.T.Kunhumuhammed| These details were furnished by the learned counsel for the petitioners and which were verified by the learned Additional Director General of Prosecution. 2. The offences alleged against the accused are under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 (Central Act No.43 of 1978). 3. Abdul Arshad and some others filed B.A.Nos.5641 of 2011 and connected cases, which were disposed of by the order dated 12[th] August, 2011. (See Abdul Arshad v. State of Kerala (2011 (3) KLT 796)). Thereafter, Abdul Arshad filed B.A.No.7550 of 2011 and ## B.A. NO.9485 OF 2011 AND CONNECTED CASES :: 6 :: connected cases, which were disposed of by the order dated 4[th] October, 2011. (See 2011 (4) KLT 297.) Those Bail Applications were dismissed on both the occasions. 4. The learned Additional Director General of Prosecution submitted that out of the above 58 cases, Bail Application Nos.9495, 9705, 9719, 9721, 9732, 9733, 9743, 9744, 9745, 9746, 9747 and 9758 of 2011 have become infructuous as default bail was granted to the petitioners therein. Accordingly, the aforesaid twelve Bail Applications are dismissed as infructuous. 5. The prosecution case is the following: Accused No.9 Abdul Arshad is the Managing Director of Bizarre Global Marketing Public Limited Company (hereinafter referred to as the Company). The Company was originally a Private Limited Company under the name Bizarre Marketing Systems Private Limited, which was incorporated on 2-11-2007. With effect from 18-6-2008, the name of the Company was changed as Bizzare Global Marketing Systems Private Limited. The Company became a Public Limited Company with effect from 14-7-2008. The allegation is that the accused ## B.A. NO.9485 OF 2011 AND CONNECTED CASES :: 7 :: persons induced several persons to subscribe to the membership and to take shares in the Company. The promise extended was that if they take shares, they will get commodities at reduced rates from the Supermarkets to be established by the Company at different places in the State. It was also promised that if those who take shares canvass other persons to take shares, the former would be paid commission. Campaigns were held by the accused to induce persons to invest money. It was promised that those who canvass more persons would get more and more commission. About a lakh people were thus induced to invest money. In the Wynad District alone, more than five thousand persons were so induced to invest money. The promise given by the accused was that within two years, they would get about eight times the money invested by them. The accused indulged in money chain business under the pretext that they were floating shares of the Company. The investors did not get the returns or the money invested by them. The accused did not fulfill the promises and the investors were cheated. 6. It is alleged that crimes were registered against the petitioners in various districts. The learned Additional Director ## B.A. NO.9485 OF 2011 AND CONNECTED CASES :: 8 :: General of Prosecution submitted that the preliminary figures show that a sum of more than `120 Crores was collected from the investors by the accused persons. 7. Sri.Babu S. Nair, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are in judicial custody from 11.6.2011 onwards. It is submitted that in all the crimes, almost similar allegations have been made. Matters to be investigated and proved are also the same. The counsel pointed out that he even raised a contention, while disposing of the Bail Applications as per the order dated 4[th] October, 2011, that formal arrest of the petitioners was not recorded in several cases only to see that the petitioners remained in judicial custody for a long period without getting even the benefit of default bail under the proviso to Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 8. Learned Additional Director General of Prosecution submitted that the investigation is in progress and if the petitioners are released on bail at this stage, it would affect the proper and smooth investigation of the case. It is also submitted that thousands ## B.A. NO.9485 OF 2011 AND CONNECTED CASES :: 9 :: of people were cheated by the accused persons and it would take time to complete the investigation and to file the charge sheet. 9. Learned Additional Director General of Prosecution submitted that the cases registered against the petitioners and others have been distributed to three centres of the CBCID, namely, Kozhikode, Ernakulam and Kottayam. It is submitted that the cases from Kottayam have been transferred to the Crime Detachment, Thrissur. 10. The petitioners are in judicial custody since 11.6.2011. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the matters to be investigated in all the cases are almost the same. Only on the ground that several cases have been registered and formal arrest of the petitioners were recorded on different dates, the petitioners need not be put in judicial custody for a long period. In the interests of justice, it is necessary to release the petitioners on bail, however, with effect from 6.12.2011, on stringent conditions. 11. The petitioners shall be released on bail only on ## B.A. NO.9485 OF 2011 AND CONNECTED CASES :: 10 :: ## 6.12.2011 on their executing bond for Rupees Fifty thousand each in each case with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court having jurisdiction, subject to the following conditions: - a) The petitioners shall report before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBCID EOW-III, Kozhikode between 9 A.M. and 11 A.M. on all Mondays, before the Assistant Commissioner, Crime Detachment, Thrissur between 9 A.M. and 11 A.M. on all Wednesdays and before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, EOW, Ernakulam between 9 A.M. and 11 A.M. on all Saturdays, until final reports are filed or until further orders; - b) The petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; - c) The petitioners shall surrender their Passports before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBCID EOW-III, Kozhikode. If the Passports have already been seized or surrendered, the petitioners shall file an affidavit indicating the same before the Court having jurisdiction, where they are bound to execute the bond for getting bail as aforesaid; - d) The petitioners shall not leave the State of Kerala without the permission of this Court; - e) The petitioners shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence; - f) The petitioners shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail; ## B.A. NO.9485 OF 2011 AND CONNECTED CASES :: 11 :: g) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to be cancelled. Bail Application Nos.9495, 9705, 9719, 9721, 9732, 9733, 9743, 9744, 9745, 9746, 9747 and 9758 of 2011 are dismissed as infructuous and the other Bail Applications are allowed in the manner indicated above. **(K.T.SANKARAN) Judge** ahz/ ## **K.T.SANKARAN, J.** ## **-----------------------------------------------------------------** **-----------------------------------------------------------------Bail Appl. NOS.9459, 9460, 9485, 9486, 9487, 9488, 9489, 9490, 9491, 9492, 9493, 9494, 9495, 9496, 9497, 9498, 9499, 9500, 9501, 9704, 9705, 9706, 9707, 9708, 9709, 9711, 9712, 9713, 9714, 9715, 9716, 9717, 9718, 9719, 9720, 9721, 9732, 9733, 9734, 9735, 9736, 9737, 9738, 9739, 9740, 9741, 9743, 9744, 9745, 9746, 9747, 9748, 9749, 9750, 9751, 9758, 9759, & 9760/ 2011** **O R D E R** **-----------------------------------------------------------------** **24[th] November, 2011**