MUHAMMED FAIZAL Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applications are filed under Sec. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the same accused to enlarge him on bail. In B.A.No.5202/2024 the petitioner is the second accused in Crime No.36/2023, in B.A.No.5222/2024 the petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.558/2022, in B.A.No.5226/2024 the petitioner is the second accused in Crime No.556/2022, in B.A.No.5228/2024 the petitioner is the second accused in Crime No.557/2022 all of the Erumapetty Police Station, Thrissur, and in B.A.No.5229/2024 the petitioner is the second accused in Crime No.881/2022, in B.A.No.5231/2024 the petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.772/2022, in B.A.No.5232/2024 the petitioner is the second accused in Crime No.792/2022, in B.A.No.5261/2024 the petitioner is the second accused in Crime No.793/2022 and in B.A.No.5267/2024 the petitioner is the second accused in Crime No.882/2022 all of the Guruvayur Police Station, Thrissur, which are registered against the petitioner and the other accused for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Ss. 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sec. 3 read with Sec. 21 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019. The petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody in all the above crimes on 6/6/2024. As the petitioner is the same in all the crimes, the applications were consolidated, jointly heard, and are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) The common case of the de-facto complainants in all the above crimes is that: the accused, in furtherance of their common intention, had induced the de-facto complainants to deposit money in their establishment named 'My Club Traders' on the assurance that they would give the de-facto complainants good profit and double their investments. However, even after a year, the accused failed to pay any profit or return the capital. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

(3.) Heard; Sri. P. Mohamed Sabah, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. C. S. Hrithwik, Smt.Neema T.V., and Smt. Seetha S., the learned Senior Public Prosecutors.