Mercy P. Joy and Others v. State of Kerala

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Raja Vijayaraghavan V
Judgment Date: 2019-03-14
Court Decision / Holding: These applications are dismissed.
Final Disposition: Dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Mercy P. Joy
Suresh Babu S.

Respondents

State of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri V.A. Satheesh
• Sri V.T. Madhavanunni

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri B. Jayasurya
• Sri Ajith Murali

Case Synopsis & Summary

This judgment from the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, delivered on 14 March 2019 by Judge Raja Vijayaraghavan V, concerns six bail applications filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. by Mercy P. Joy (and co-accused) arising from six crimes across Kannur and Kasaragod districts in 2018. The petitioners were directors of SIGS Tech Marketing Private Limited and faced charges of cheating and misappropriation of investors' funds. The applicants argued that their roles were not major, that the principal accused had already been granted pre-arrest bail in another case, and that there was no prima facie evidence warranting further custody. The State prosecutor contended that the investigation reveals their complicity and that releasing them would jeopardize the investigation and the many victims defrauded by the alleged illegal financing scheme. The court noted the 2018 timing of the offences, the systemic fraud, and the prior rejection of similar bail pleas. It cited the Supreme Court decision in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Pappu Yadav to emphasize that there is a limited area for a subsequent bail application, absent a change in facts or law. Since no such change was shown, the court refused to grant bail, directed surrender within ten days for interrogation, and stated that a regular bail application could be pursued thereafter. The applications were dismissed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Limited scope for subsequent bail applications (as explained in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Pappu Yadav) - a second bail application is permissible only upon change in fact situation or law; otherwise no bail despite earlier denial.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicants contended that they had no major role in the alleged offence, that the principal accused had already obtained pre-arrest bail in another case, and that there was no compelling reason to keep them in custody. They emphasized the 2018 timing of the offences, the relatively limited involvement of the present petitioners, and urged consideration of a bail order, or at least non-arrest until further inquiry, citing the limited scope for second bail applications in light of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Pappu Yadav.

Contentions of Respondents

The State argued that the investigations reveal the involvement and complicity of the petitioners in a large-scale illegal financing operation, with numerous victims defrauded. It contended that releasing them would impede investigations and risk tampering with evidence; that the applicants are implicated as directors of the company; and that the court should deny pre-arrest bail to protect the inquiry and victims.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Pappu Yadav	AIR 2005 SC 921	Partly Overruled / Limited	The court cites this decision to acknowledge a narrow permissible arena for filing a subsequent bail application after a prior denial, but requires a change in facts or law to reconsider bail; no such change was shown here.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 23RD PHALGUNA, 1940** **Bail Appl..No. 5407 of 2018** **CRIME NO. 505/2018 OF MATTANNUR POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3:** **MERCY P. JOY, W/O. JOY, AGED 49 YEARS, PARAPPURATH HOUSE, TALIPARAMBA P.O., TALIPARAMBA AMSOM, KANNUR DISTRICT-670141.** **BY ADVS. SRI.V.A.SATHEESH SRI.V.T.MADHAVANUNNI** ## **RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:** **STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA THROUGH S.H.O. MATTANNUR POLICE STATION, KANNUR DT.** BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.B.JAYASURYA **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.03.2019, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..5408/2018 AND OTHER CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** B.As.5407, 5408, 5409, 5411, 5412 of 2018 , & 1253/2019 .2 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 23RD PHALGUNA, 1940** **Bail Appl..No. 5408 of 2018** **CRIME NO. 500/2018 OF THALASSERY POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT** ## **PETITIONER/6TH ACCUSED:** **MERCY P. JOY, W/O. JOY, AGED 49 YEARS, PARAPPURATH HOUSE, TALIPARAMBA P.O, TALIPARAMBA AMSOM, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 141.** **BY ADVS. SRI.V.A.SATHEESH SRI.V.T.MADHAVANUNNI** ## **RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:** **STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA THROUGH S.H.O. TALIPARAMBA POLICE STATION, KANNUR DT.** **BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI..AJITH MURALI** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.03.2019, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..5407/2018 AND OTHER CONTD. CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** B.As.5407, 5408, 5409, 5411, 5412 of 2018 , & 1253/2019 .3 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 23RD PHALGUNA, 1940** **Bail Appl..No. 5409 of 2018** **CRIME NO. 289/2018 OF PARIYARAM MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** **MERCY P.JOY, W/O.JOY, AGED 49 YEARS, PARAPPURATH HOUSE, TALIPARAMBA P.O., TALIPARAMBA AMSOM, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 141.** **BY ADVS. SRI.V.A.SATHEESH SRI.V.T.MADHAVANUNNI** ## **RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:** **STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA THROUGH S.H.O., PARIYARAM MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT.** ## **BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. B. JAYASURYA** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.03.2019, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..5407/2018 AND OTHER CONTD. CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** B.As.5407, 5408, 5409, 5411, 5412 of 2018 , & 1253/2019 .4 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 23RD PHALGUNA, 1940** **Bail Appl..No. 5411 of 2018 CRIME NO. 386/2018 OF NEELESWARAM POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD** **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 & 3:** **1 SURESH BABU S., S/O.SIVASANKARAN NAIR, AGED 47 YEARS, GOURI SANKARAM, PUZHAKULANGARA, TALIPARAMBA PO, TALIPARAMBA AMSOM, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2 MERCY P.JOY, AGED 49 YEARS, PARAPPURATH HOUSE, TALIPARAMBA PO, TALIPARAMBA ASMOM, KANNUR DISTRICT-670141. BY ADVS. SRI.V.A.SATHEESH SRI.V.T.MADHAVANUNNI** ## **RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:** **STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA THROUGH S.H.O NEELESWARAM POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DT.** **BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.B.JAYASURYA** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.03.2019, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..5407/2018 AND OTHER CONTD. CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** B.As.5407, 5408, 5409, 5411, 5412 of 2018 , & 1253/2019 .5 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 23RD PHALGUNA, 1940** **Bail Appl..No. 5412 of 2018** **CRIME NO. 462/2018 OF THALASSERY POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT** **PETITIONER/ACCUSED NOS.1 & 3:** **MERCY P.JOY, W/O. JOY, AGED 49 YEARS, PARAPPURATH HOUSE, TALIPARAMBA P.O., TALIPARAMBA AMSOM, KANNUR DISTRICT-670141.** **BY ADVS. SRI.V.A.SATHEESH SRI.V.T.MADHAVANUNNI** ## **RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:** **STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA THROUGH S.H.O. TALIPARAMBA POLICE STATION, KANNUR DT.** **BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. B. JAYASURYA** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.03.2019, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..5407/2018 AND OTHER CONTD. CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** B.As.5407, 5408, 5409, 5411, 5412 of 2018 , & 1253/2019 .6 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 23RD PHALGUNA, 1940 Bail Appl..No. 1253 of 2019** **CRIME NO. 473/2018 OF TALIPARAMBA POLICE STATION, KANNUR** ## **PETITIONER/6TH ACCUSED:** **MERCY P.JOY, AGED 49 YEARS, W/O.JOY, PARAPPURATH HOUSE, TALIPARAMBA.P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS. SRI.V.A.SATHEESH SRI.V.T.MADHAVANUNNI** ## **RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:** **STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, THROUGH S.H.O TALIPARAMBA POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT.** **BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. B. JAYASURYA** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.03.2019, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..5407/2018 AND OTHER CONTD. CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** B.As.5407, 5408, 5409, 5411, 5412 of 2018 , & 1253/2019 .7 ## **ORDER** These applications are filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. 2. The applicants herein are the accused in Crime No.505/2018 of the Mattannur Police Station, Crime No.500/2018 of the Thalassery Police Station, Crime No.289/2018 of the Pariyaram Medical College Police Station, Crime No.386/2018 of the Neeleswaram Police Station, Crime No.462/2018 of the Thalassery Police Station and Crime No.473/2018 of the Taliparamba Police Station. In the aforesaid crimes, they are being proceeded against for having committed offence punishable under Section 420 r/w. Section 34 of the IPC. 3. According to the prosecution, the applicants are the directors of SIGS Tech Marketing Private Limited. The allegation is that the Company through its directors collected huge sums of money from various innocent investors by issuing receipts on the assurance that the amounts would be repaid on maturity with accrued interest. The amounts collected were allegedly misappropriated and it was converted to their own use. Numerous complaints were lodged before the Police and separate crimes were registered. B.As.5407, 5408, 5409, 5411, 5412 of 2018 , & 1253/2019 .8 4. The learned counsel appearing for the applicants submitted that the principal accused has been granted pre-arrest bail by this Court in one of the cases. According to the learned counsel, the applicants had no major role to play and prays that necessary orders be issued. 5. The above contention is very vehemently opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor, who submitted that the investigation conducted till date reveals the complicity of the applicants herein. 6. I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the materials made available. 7. The applicant in B.A. No.1253 of 2019 had earlier approached this Court seeking pre-arrest bail. This Court by order dated 2.11.2018 in B.A. Nos.5405 and 5406 of 2018 had rejected the applications taking note of the role attributed to her, the nature of allegations, the large number of persons defrauded and attendant facts. The records produced before this Court would show that the de facto complainants have narrated the manner in which they were defrauded in a systemic manner by the accused, who were running an illegal financing business. Specific case of the prosecution is that they B.As.5407, 5408, 5409, 5411, 5412 of 2018 , & 1253/2019 .9 are the directors of the company. Having gone through the materials, I find no compelling reason to grant an order of pre-arrest bail to the applicants herein. 8. Furthermore, the Apex Court in **Kalyan Chandra Sarkar** v. **Pappu Yadav** (AIR 2005 SC 921), had held that though there is room for filing a subsequent bail application in cases where earlier applications have been rejected, the same can be done if there is a change in the fact situation or in law which requires the earlier view be interfered with or where the earlier finding has become obsolete. This is the limited area in which, an accused, who has been denied bail earlier, can move a subsequent application. No such change of circumstance is brought to the notice of this Court by the applicants. 9. However, taking note of the fact that one of the applicants is a lady and also the fact that the crimes are registered in the year 2018, I direct the applicants to surrender before the investigating officer within a period of ten days from today. They shall be thoroughly interrogated and the documents which are alleged in the possession of the applicants shall also be perused. Thereafter, they shall be produced before the court having jurisdiction, where they can seek regular bail. If such an application is filed, the same shall be B.As.5407, 5408, 5409, 5411, 5412 of 2018 , & 1253/2019 .10 considered and orders shall be passed expeditiously and on its merits, ideally on the same day itself. These applications are dismissed. **SD/-** **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE** krj //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE