DHANVYAVASAYA STAPANAM Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are the accused Nos.1 to 3, in Crime No.2437/2022 of Thrissur Town East Police Station. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Ss. 406 and 420 r/w. Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The 1st accused is an establishment and is a financial institution represented by the 2nd petitioner, who is claimed to be the Managing Partner of the 1st petitioner. The 1st petitioner establishment is being run by 2nd and 3rd petitioners. The allegation against the petitioners is as follows: The husband of the defacto complainant has been having financial transactions with the petitioners for the last 20 years. In the year 2020, the defacto complainant, based on assurance given by petitioners 2 and 3 that the amount will be returned to them as and when required, deposited an amount of Rs.12,50,000.00with the 1st accused firm. However, when the defacto complainant requested for the return of the said amount along with interest in the year 2022, they did not do so. The complaint was submitted in such circumstances based on which the crime was registered, and the investigation is now in progress. As the petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with the investigation of the said crime, this application is submitted for Anticipatory Bail.

(2.) Heard Sri.P.Vijaya Bhanu, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, Sri. M.P.Prashanth, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State, Sri. N.U.Harikrishna, learned counsel appearing for the additional respondents 2 to 5.

(3.) The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent of all allegations. The 1st petitioner firm was initially started by the father of the 2nd petitioner 70 years ago, which was later taken over by the petitioners 1 and 2 and had been functioning since then very smoothly. However, during the Covid-19 pandemic, the business of the firm sustained some losses as some of the customers who were the subscribers of the chitty conducted by petitioners failed to repay the amount due to the petitioners and resultantly some financial crises occurred, which affected the repayment of the amount to the persons who deposited amounts with the firm. According to him, the firm has immovable properties worth Rs.50.00 Crores in the heart of Thrissur Corporation, and total liability would come to Rs.45.00 Crores only. According to him, all earnest efforts are being taken to repay the aforesaid amount, and no culpability could be attributed against the petitioners. It is further pointed out that the 2nd petitioner is aged 66 years, and the 3rd petitioner, who is the wife of the 2nd petitioner, is aged 62 years. In such circumstances, the learned Senior Counsel seeks an order granting Anticipatory Bail. It is submitted that they are prepared to abide by any conditions that this court may impose.