Dr. Harish Babu Maddineni v. State of Kerala

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL 2012/28TH CHAITHRA 1934 Bail Appl..No. 2082 of 2012 () -----------------------------CRIME NO.730/2011 OF BEKKAL POLICESTATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ---------- DR.HARISH BABU MADDINENI FLAT NO 108,CREATIVE SNEHA APARTMENTS BOTANICAL GARDENS,KONDAPUR, GYDERABAD ANDHARA PRADESH BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT RESPONDENT(S)/STATE: --------------- STATE OF KERALA REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM KOCHI-31 BY ADGP SHRI K.I.ABDUL RASHEED THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17-04-2012, ALONG WITH BA.2083/2012 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ## **THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.** **-------------------------------------B.A. Nos.2082, 2083, 2084,2108, 2109, 2110, 2111, 2112 and 2142 of 2012** **-------------------------------------Dated this the 17[th] day of April, 2012.** ## **ORDER** These applications for bail (except B.A.No.2110 of 2012) are preferred by the petitioner/accused against whom offences punishable under Secs.420 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the IPC”) and Secs.3 to 6 (both inclusive) of the Prize, Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 are alleged. In B.A.No.2110 of 2012 allegation as it now stands against petitioner is one under Sec.420 of the IPC. 2. Case in short is that petitioner in the guise of business in multilevel marketing of products based on nano technology engaged in business of money circulation, cheated depositors with false promise of more returns on investments in various projects of the company of petitioner. It is alleged that crores of rupees was collected from the depositors. But neither was the money returned nor, profits given. 3. Learned counsel submits that petitioner was arrested by the Hyderabad Police on 31.08.2011 and was produced before the Wadakkancherry Police on 02.09.2011. Thereafter, cases were registered against petitioner at various Police Stations. It is submitted that several cases were registered against petitioner and in 512 cases, petitioner is granted bail. **B.A. Nos.2082, 2083, 2084,2108, 2109, 2110, 2111, 2112 and 2142 of 2012** 2 Learned counsel has submitted that to circumvent application of Sec.167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Code”) the Police is not requesting for remand of petitioner in the cases referred above. It is also submitted by learned counsel that in spite of orders obtained from various courts the Police is not producing petitioner/accused before the courts concerned to order his remand so that Sec.167(2) of the Code will not apply. Learned counsel submitted that petitioner is in custody from 31.08.2011 onwards and has invited my attention to the decision in **Sanjay Chandra v. CBI ((2012) 1 SCC 40)** and in particular the observations in paragraphs 21 to 25 of the said decision. Learned counsel requested that in the circumstances, petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel that in B.A.No.2142 of 2012 (Crime No.326 of 2011 of Mukkam Police Station) petitioner was released on bail as per order dated 31.01.2012 but he has been re-arrested on 22.03.2012 without even cancellation of the bail. According to the learned counsel, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasaragod has committed a serious illegality in ordering re-arrest of petitioner, in Crime No.326 of 2011 of Mukkam Police Station. Learned counsel has also invited my attention to Annexure-A, medical report to show that petitioner is undergoing treatment for various ailments. It is alleged that he is not given proper treatment. 4. Learned Additional Director General of Prosecution (for short, “learned ADGP”) opposed the applications. It is submitted that the plea for statutory bail cannot be accepted since the said principle would apply only from **B.A. Nos.2082, 2083, 2084,2108, 2109, 2110, 2111, 2112 and 2142 of 2012** 3 the date of first remand as held by this Court in **Harish Babu Maddineni (Dr.) v. State of Kerala (2012 (1) KHC 62)** . According to the learned ADGP, petitioner is involved in several cases involving crores of rupees. It is submitted that petitioner has cheated several depositors and that petitioner has deposited the amount he has collected from various depositors in several banks including international banks the details of which are to be collected. The further submission is that a portion of the money thus collected has also been spent for purchasing property in the name of some other persons. These aspects also are to be investigated which require time. 5. So far as re-arrest of petitioner in Crime No.326 of 2011 of Mukkam Police Station is concerned, learned ADGP submits that it was by a mistake that the said case was included in the list of cases in which arrest was to be recorded. 6. So far as application of Sec.167(2) of the Code is concerned, I am inclined to accept the argument advanced by the learned ADGP. For, it is seen that whatever be the reason thereof, there is no order for remand of petitioner in the cases now before me (except Crime No.797 of 2011 of Nilambur Police Station) and hence in the light of the decision in **Harish Babu Maddineni (Dr.) v. State of Kerala** (supra) the request for statutory bail cannot be allowed. So **B.A. Nos.2082, 2083, 2084,2108, 2109, 2110, 2111, 2112 and 2142 of 2012** 4 far as Crime No.797 of 2011 of Nilambur Police Station is concerned, even as per the submission of learned counsel for petitioner the first remand was on 22.03.2012 in which case statutory period has not expired. 7. So far as the claim for bail under Sec.439 of the Code is concerned, I have to look into the allegations made against petitioner. No doubt the Supreme Court in **Sanjay Chandra v. CBI** (supra) has given the guidelines which the court has to look into while considering the request for bail. But, the question whether request for bail could be allowed or not has to be decided with reference to the factual matrix involved in each case. 8. Allegations against petitioner are serious. There is allegation of several depositors being cheated to the tune of several crores of rupees. The number of (allegedly) cheated persons are much and the investigation required to be conducted is complicated. Learned ADGP points out the amounts collected are said to be invested in several banks including international banks and even purchase of property is allegedly effected in the name of other persons. It would take time to unearth these aspects. Hence I am not inclined to say, at this stage that there was any laxity on the part of the Investigating Officer. **B.A. Nos.2082, 2083, 2084,2108, 2109, 2110, 2111, 2112 and 2142 of 2012** 5 9. Learned counsel has invited my attention to Annexure-A. Assuming that petitioner has any illness as stated therein, that by itself is not a ground to release him on bail but, petitioner is required to be given medical treatment if required. The Superintendent of Central Prison, Viyyur will look into that matter and give necessary medical aid to the petitioner if found necessary. 10. So far as Crime No.326 of 2011 of Mukkam Police Station is concerned, even as per the submission of the learned ADGP it was by a mistake that Police had happened to submit a list of cases where arrest of the petitioner was to be recorded and in that list, Crime No.326 of 2011 of Mukkam Police Station happened to be entered. It is not disputed that petitioner was released on bail in that case on 31.01.2012 and his re-arrest was recorded on 22.03.2012. Since petitioner has already been released on bail in that case and his re-arrest was not required, petitioner is entitled to bail in Crime No.326 of 2011 of Mukkam Police Station. Resultantly, these applications are disposed of as under: ## A. **B.A.No.2142 of 2012** This application is allowed. Petitioner is granted bail in Crime No.326 of 2011 of Mukkam Police Station. He will be released if not required to be detained otherwise on his executing bond for `25,000/- (Rupees Twentyfive **B.A. Nos.2082, 2083, 2084,2108, 2109, 2110, 2111, 2112 and 2142 of 2012** 6 thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kozhikode subject to the following conditions: (i) The sureties shall produce photocopy of their title deed and identity cards attested by petitioner's counsel along with the recent receipt for payment of land revenue. (ii) Petitioner shall report to the Officer investigating the case as and when required for investigation. (iii) Petitioner shall not go beyond Kerala State except with the permission of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kozhikode. (iv) Petitioner shall surrender his Passport if any before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kozhikode before he is released on bail and in case he has none, file affidavit to that effect before the learned Magistrate. (v) It is made clear that in case of violation of any of the above conditions it will be open to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kozhikode to cancel the bail granted hereby as held in **P.K. Shaji v. State of Kerala** (AIR 2006 SC 100). (x) If any modification, relaxation or lifting of the conditions imposed hereby is required petitioner may approach learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kozhikode and if any such application is filed and if the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate is satisfied that circumstance warrant such modification, relaxation or lifting conditions, it is open to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to pass **B.A. Nos.2082, 2083, 2084,2108, 2109, 2110, 2111, 2112 and 2142 of 2012** 7 appropriate orders in that regard as held in **P.K. Shaji v. State of Kerala** (supra). ## B. **B.A. Nos.2082, 2083, 2084,2108, 2109, 2110, 2111 and 2112 of** ## **2012** These applications are dismissed. The Superintendent of Central Prison, Viyyur is directed to render all medical aid to the petitioner if circumstances warranted that. It is made clear that notwithstanding the order passed by this Court, it will be open to the petitioner to move appropriate applications before the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate as the case may be for bail in the cases pending before them as per the appropriate provision of law and on whatever grounds as are available to the petitioner on facts and under law. **THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge.** **cks**