RENUKA.R and K.G. VIJAYAMANI v. STATE OF KERALA

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C.S. Dias
Judgment Date: 2024-03-12
Court Decision / Holding: The petition is allowed; pre-arrest bail granted subject to conditions: surrender within ten days; if arrested, produce before court on surrender; bond of Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties; cooperate with investigation; no witness intimidation; surrender of passports; no new offence; and court may cancel bail on violation. The court also notes the recoveries permissible under Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, and cites Annexures A2-A3 to justify relief.
Final Disposition: Pre-arrest bail granted in favor of petitioners

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

RENUKA.R
K.G. VIJAYAMANI

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala
Station House Officer, Nooranadu Police Station, Alappuzha District
Detective Inspector, Crime Branch, Crime Branch Office, Alappuzha

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. Alexander George

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt. Seetha. S., Public Prosecutor

Case Synopsis & Summary

This bail application under Section 438 CrPC concerns accused nos. 10 and 11 in Crime No.236/2021 of CBCID, Alappuzha (earlier Nooranad PS Crime No.850/2015). Petitioners RENU KA.R (53) and K.G. VIJAYAMANI (67) were senior executives of PACL Ltd., alleged to have convinced a defacto complainant to invest about Rs. 61,616 in Pearls Agro Tech Corporation Ltd. (PACL) with promises of large profits, but failed to remit or return the capital. They are charged with offences under IPC Sections 420 (cheating), 511 (attempted offences), and 465 r/w 34, along with Sections 2(c), 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Prize Chits Money Circulation Scheme (Banning Act, 1978) and Section 45S of the RBI Act. The prosecution asserts defrauding several persons and ongoing investigation; however, the petitioners contend they had no active role in company management, which was handled by accused 1 and 2, and that Annexures A2 and A3 show pre-arrest bail granted to similarly situated employees. After hearing, the Court found custodial interrogation unnecessary, relied on the similarly situated orders, and granted pre-arrest bail subject to conditions to cooperate with investigation and other safeguards. The order reflects the caution of procedural safeguards while permitting release on bail, with reference to the Sushila Aggarwal principle for recoveries during bail.

Provisions of Law Cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 438Indian Penal Code: Sections 420, 511, 465 r/w 34Prize Chits Money Circulation Scheme (Banning Act 1978): Sections 2(c), 3, 4, 5 and 6RBI Act: Section 45S

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend they had no active role in the company management; the company was run by accused 1 and 2. Annexures A2 and A3 show similarly situated employees receiving pre-arrest bail; hence they seek similar relief.

Contentions of Respondents

The prosecution asserts the company defrauded several persons and investigation is in progress, though it concedes petitioners are senior executives and that Annexures A2-A3 show similar bail orders to others.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another	2020 (1) KHC 663	Positive	Cited as governing principle allowing recoveries during bail and supporting the grant of pre-arrest bail with conditions.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** # **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS ``` ``` TUESDAY, THE 12[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 22ND PHALGUNA, 1945 BAIL APPL. NO. 1750 OF 2024 ``` ``` CRIME NO.236/2021 OF CBCID, ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA ``` ## **`PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.10 AND 11:`** ``` 1RENUKA.R AGED 53 YEARS W/O THULASEEDHARAN, RADHA VILASAM, MELILA, P.O, KUNNICODUM KOTTARAKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691508 ``` ``` 2K.G. VIJAYAMANI AGED 67 YEARS W/O K. SSIDHARAN PILLAI, VIJAYA BHAVAN, MELILA, KOTTARAKARA, PIN - 691557 ``` ## **`BY ADV ALEXANDER GEORGE`** ## **`RESPONDENTS/STATE /COMPLAINANT:`** - **`1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031`** - **`2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER NOORANADU POLICE STATION, ALAPUZHA DISTRICT., PIN - 688001`** ``` 3 DETECTIVE INSPECTOR CRIME BRANCH CRIME BRANCH OFFICE, ALAPUZHA, PIN - 688001 ``` ## **`BY SR PP SRI C S HRITHWIK`** ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` B.A.No.1750 of 2024 ## -:2:- ## **O R D E R** Dated this the 12[th] day of March, 2024 The application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for an order of prearrest bail. 2. The petitioners are the accused 10 and 11 in Crime No. 236/CB/ALP/R/2021 of the CBCID, Alappuzha, (earlier registered as Crime No.850/2015 of Nooranad Police Station.) registered against them for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 420 , 511 of 465 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 2(c), 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Prize Chits Money Circulation Scheme (Banning Act 1978) and 45(s) of RBI Act. 3. The crux of the prosecution case is that: the defacto complainant had deposited an amount of Rs.61,616/- in Pearls Agro tech Corporation Ltd.(PACL Ltd), a private financial institution, which has been B.A.No.1750 of 2024 ## -:3:- managed and administered by the accused 1 and 2. The accused 10 and 11 were the Senior Executives of the said company. The accused had convinced the defacto complainant to invest money in the said company, them interest as well as a assuring huge profit. However, the accused failed to give any profit or return the capital. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 4. Heard; Sri. Alexander George, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Smt. Seetha. S, the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have no active role in the company. were not in of the or They charge management administration of the company. The company was managed by the accused 1 and 2. Taking into consideration all these aspects, by Annexure A2 and A3 orders, this Court had granted orders of pre-arrest bail to the similarly situated employees. The petitioners are B.A.No.1750 of 2024 ## -:4:- also entitled to the benefits of the said orders. Hence, the application may be allowed. 6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. She contended that the accused company had defrauded several persons. The investigation in the case is in progress. Nonetheless, she conceded to the fact that the petitioners are only the Senior Executives, and Annexure A2 and A3 orders have been passed to persons similarly situated in the petitions. 7. On an anxious consideration to the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar, the materials placed on record, especially taking note of Annexure A2 and A3 orders passed in favour of the persons similarly situated as the petitioners, who are also the paid employees of the first accused company, I am of the definite view that the petitioners’ custodial interrogation is not necessary. Hence, I hold that the petitioners are entitled to an order of pre-arrest bail, subject to the condition that they cooperate with the Investigating B.A.No.1750 of 2024 ## -:5:- Officer. In the result, the application is allowed subject to the following conditions: i) The petitioners are directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today. ii) In the event of the petitioners’ arrest, the Investigating Officer shall produce them before the jurisdictional court on the date of surrender itself. iii) On such production, the jurisdictional court shall release the petitioners on bail on them executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties for the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court; iv) The petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation and make themselves available for interrogation and for the purpose of investigation as and when the Investigating Officer directs; v). The petitioners shall not intimidate witnesses or interfere with the investigation in any manner; B.A.No.1750 of 2024 ## -:6:- vi). The petitioners shall surrender their passports, if any, before the court below at the time of execution of the bond. If they have no passports, they shall file an affidavit to the effect before the court below on the date of execution of the bond; vii) The petitioners shall not get involved in any other offence while on bail. viii). In case of violation of any of the conditions mentioned above, the jurisdictional court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation of bail, if any filed, and pass orders on the same, in accordance with law. ix). Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall also be filed before the court below. x) Needless to mention, it would be well within the powers of the Investigating Officer to investigate the matter and, if necessary, to effect recoveries on the information, if any, given by the petitioners even while the petitioners are on bail as laid down by the Hon'ble B.A.No.1750 of 2024 -:7:- Supreme Court in **Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another [2020 (1) KHC 663].** Sd/- **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE** mtk/12.03.24 B.A.No.1750 of 2024 -:8:- ## **`APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 1750/2024`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES ``` ``` ANNEXURE 1A TRUE COPY OF THE ADVERTISEMENT IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED 27.3.2022 ANNEXURE 2THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED IN BA NO. 3283 /2022 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT ON 7.3.2023 ANNEXURE 3THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED IN BA NO. 9656 /2023 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT ON 1.2.2024 ```