K.R. Prasad v. State of Kerala

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Viju Abraham
Judgment Date: 2022-12-07
Court Decision / Holding: Anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner with stringent conditions; surrender before the investigating officer on 14.12.2022 for interrogation; if arrested in related crimes, he shall be produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate and released on bail on conditions; conditions include bond Rs.50,000 with two sureties, appearance for interrogation, no tampering with evidence, no witness intimidation, and no commission of other crimes; police empowered to effect recoveries if necessary under Sushila Aggarwal (2020) KHC 663.
Final Disposition: Granted anticipatory bail

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

K.R. Prasad

Respondents

State of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Anand Kalyanakrishnan
• C. Dheeraj Rajan

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt. S. Seetha

Case Synopsis & Summary

Petitioner K.R. Prasad, sought anticipatory bail in three connected bail applications (BA 8197/2022, 8205/2022 and 8207/2022) arising from Palakkad Town South Police Station cases registered for offences under IPC sections 406, 420 and 120B and under the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning Act), 1978 (Sections 3, 4 and 5). The 2nd and 3rd accused allegedly induced the defacto complainant to invest in a company, promising large profits, but the invested amounts were not returned. The petitioner contends that though the defacto complainant claims he was a director of the first company, annexures filed with the petitions show otherwise; he was not a director and had no contact with the company. He also submits that after notices under Section 41A Cr.P.C. he appeared for interrogation, cooperated with the investigation, and that a sworn affidavit with Annexure-6 in one case states the complainant has no subsisting grievance. The Public Prosecutor confirms the 41A notices and cooperation. Having regard to the facts and the nature of the allegations, the learned judge held that custodial interrogation is not essential; only limited custody is needed. The petitions are allowed with stringent conditions: the petitioner shall surrender on 14.12.2022 for interrogation; if arrested in connected crimes, he shall be produced before the Magistrate on the same day and released on bail on conditions including a bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties of like amount, appearance as required, not tampering with evidence, not inducing witnesses, and not committing any other crime while on bail. The court also notes it is within police power to effect recoveries even while on bail, by relying on Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020 (1) KHC 663).

Provisions of Law Cited

IPC Section 406IPC Section 420IPC Section 120BPrize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning Act), 1978, Sections 3, 4 and 5Cr.P.C. Section 41A

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Applicants contended that the 2nd/3rd accused had no director/managerial contact with the first company; annexures show he was not a director or in touch with the company. He cooperated with the investigation following Section 41A Cr.P.C notices and appeared for interrogation; an affidavit in Annexure-6 states the defacto complainant has no subsisting grievance.

Contentions of Respondents

The Public Prosecutor stated that a Section 41A Cr.P.C notice was issued and the petitioner cooperated with the investigation, with no outstanding grievance; the state supported the request for anticipatory bail with conditions.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sushila Aggarwal and others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another	2020 (1) KHC 663	Positive	Cited and relied upon by the court to justify that police may effect recoveries on information even when the petitioner is on bail; used to frame the scope of bail-related conditions.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM** **WEDNESDAY, THE 7[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944 BAIL APPL. NO. 8197 OF 2022** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2:** K.R. PRASAD AGED 45 YEARS S/O RAMAKRISHNAN, KUNNATH PADIKKAL HOUSE, PAZHUVIL WEST, THIRUTHIKKAD(VIA), THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680542 BY ADVS. ANAND KALYANAKRISHNAN C.DHEERAJ RAJAN ## **RESPONDENT/STATE:** STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 ## **OTHER PRESENT:** PP:Seetha S THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.12.2022, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..8205/2022, 8207/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **B.A. Nos.8197, 8205 & 8207 of 2022 2** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM** **WEDNESDAY, THE 7[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944** ## **BAIL APPL. NO. 8205 OF 2022** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3:** K.R. PRASAD AGED 45 YEARS S/O RAMAKRISHNAN, KUNNATH PADIKKAL HOUSE, PAZHUVIL WEST, THIRUTHIKKAD(VIA), THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680542 BY ADVS. ANAND KALYANAKRISHNAN C.DHEERAJ RAJAN ## **RESPONDENT/STATE:** STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S.SEETHA THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.12.2022, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..8197/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **B.A. Nos.8197, 8205 & 8207 of 2022 3** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM** **WEDNESDAY, THE 7[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944** ## **BAIL APPL. NO. 8207 OF 2022** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3:** K.R. PRASAD AGED 45 YEARS S/O RAMAKRISHNAN, KUNNATH PADIKKAL HOUSE, PAZHUVIL WEST, THIRUTHIKKAD(VIA), THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680542 BY ADVS. ANAND KALYANAKRISHNAN C.DHEERAJ RAJAN ## **RESPONDENT/STATE:** STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S.SEETHA THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.12.2022, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..8197/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## **B.A. Nos.8197, 8205 & 8207 of 2022 4** ## **VIJU ABRAHAM, J.** **-------------------** **B.A. Nos.8197, 8205 & 8207 of 2022 ---------------------------------------Dated this the 7[th] day of December, 2022** ## **ORDER** Application for anticipatory bail. 2. Petitioner is the 2[nd] accused in Crime No.835 of 2022, whereas he is the 3[rd] accused in Crime Nos.638 & 441 of 2022 of Palakkad Town South Police Station registered alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 120B of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning Act), 1978. 3. The prosecution allegation is that, he along with other accused induced the defacto complainant stating that if he invests in the 1[st] accused company, the defacto complainant would get huge profit and thereby induced the defacto complainant to invest in the said company and the defacto complainant invested huge amounts, but neither ## **B.A. Nos.8197, 8205 & 8207 of 2022 5** returned the amount nor gave any profit. 4. It is contended by the petitioner that even though the specific contention of the defacto complainant is that the petitioner is the Director of the company, by Annexures-2 and 3 filed along with B.A.No.8205 of 2022, he neither a director nor having any contact with the said company. Petitioner further submitted that pursuant to Annexures-4 & 5 notice issued under Section 41A Cr.P.C, produced along with B.A.No.8205 of 2022, he appeared before the investigating officer and was thoroughly interrogated and he fully co-operated with the investigation. Petitioner has also submitted that the defacto complainant in Crime No.638 of 2022 has sworn to an affidavit produced along with Cr.M.A.No.1 of 2022 in B.A.No.8207 of 2022 that he has no subsisting grievance against the petitioner herein. The said affidavit is produced as Annexure-6. ## **B.A. Nos.8197, 8205 & 8207 of 2022 6** 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor upon instructions submitted that, it is true that notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner appeared before the investigating officer and fully co-operated with the investigation. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, and nature of the allegations, I am of the opinion that custodial interrogation may not be required for the purpose of investigation and only a limited custody is required for the same. I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, but on stringent conditions. The above bail applications are allowed with the following directions. The petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer on 14.12.2022 and make himself available for interrogation on that day or on any other day/days ## **B.A. Nos.8197, 8205 & 8207 of 2022 7** and time as directed by the investigating officer. The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation. In the event of arrest of the petitioner in Crime Nos.638, 441 & 835 of 2022 of Palakkad Town South Police Station, he shall be produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate on the same day and be released on bail on the ## following conditions: _(i) The petitioner shall execute a bond for sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court;_ _(ii) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer in Crime Nos.638, 441 & 835 of 2022 of Palakkad Town South Police Station, as and when required;_ _(iii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence;_ _(iv) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any witness acquainted with him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer;_ _(v) The petitioner shall not involve in any other crime while on bail._ If any of the aforesaid conditions are violated, the Investigating Officer in Crime Nos.638, 441 & **B.A. Nos.8197, 8205 & 8207 of 2022 8** 835 of 2022 of Palakkad Town South Police Station, may file an application before the jurisdictional court for cancellation of bail. It is made clear that it is within the power of the police to investigate the matter and if necessary to effect recoveries on the information if any given by the petitioner even when the petitioner is on bail as per the judgment of the Apex Court in _**Sushila Aggarwal and others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020 (1) KHC 663)**_ . sd/- **VIJU ABRAHAM,JUDGE** pm