PRAMOD ISSAC Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Pramod Issac, who is accused No. 10 in Crime No. 28 of 2009 of CBCID, Thiruvananthapuram, who is also accused No. 5 in Crime No. 201 of 2008 and accused No. 4 in Crime No. 169 of 2008, seeks bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accused No. 1 in these cases is one Sabarinath, who is the Managing Director of the financial institutions, namely, "Nest Investment Solutions", "INEST, 'Total 4 U" etc. It is alleged that the accused persons induced more than one thousand of depositors by fraudulent representations offering very high rate of interest and other monetary benefits, which prompted the depositors to deposit huge amounts of money in the aforesaid financial institutions. It is also alleged that after amassing wealth by misappropriating money of the depositors, the accused persons closed down the institutions and absconded. Several depositors approached the police. Initially, the case was registered at the Medical College Police Station in August, 2008. In view of the serious nature of the offence involving crores of rupees belonging to the general public, the case was transferred to the Crime Branch CID for investigation. It is stated that the Crime Branch Unit, Thiruvananthapuram took up the investigation in September, 2008. The scam is popularly known as 'Total 4 U scam".

(2.) In Crime No. 169 of 2008, the offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 120(B), 109, 406, 409, 420, 465, 468, 471, 202 and 212 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 45(S) and 58(B) of the Reserve Bank of India Act. In Crime No. 201 of 2008, the petitioner is accused of having committed offence under Sections 120(B), 406, 409 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In Crime No. 28 of 2009, the offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 120(B), 403, 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) Learned Director General of Prosecution submitted that the petitioner moved an application for anticipatory bail before the High Court in B.A. No. 6116 of 2008. While dismissing that Bail Application, this Court directed the petitioner to report before the Investigating Officer within twenty days from 7.10.2008. The petitioner did not omply with that direction. He surrendered before the Investigating Officer only on 18.4.2009 and he was arrested in Crime No. 169 of 2008. The petitioner is in judicial custody since then. His formal arrest was recorded on 27.4.2009 in Crime No. 201 of 2008 and on 7.5.2009 in Crime No. 28 of 2009.