Petitioner who is accused of dishonestly inducting the complainant to invest a huge sum of amount is granted bail as he was not found to be directly related to the case : High Court of Kerala
Court granted bail to the petitioner as it was not found that petitioner has received any amount personally by the de facto complainant or he is directly associated by the case and was upheld by High Court of Kerala through the learned bench led by HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. in the case of GOPAKUMAR.G. vs STATE OF KERALA (BAIL APPL. NO. 2109 OF 2022) on 31st March, 2022.
Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner along with the other accused in the case, dishonestly induced the de facto complainant to invest huge sums of money after promising that he would made a partner/share holder in the business being run by the 1st accused in Kuwait and Singapore. It is alleged that the de facto complainant was made to believe that the petitioner is a close relative of the Panthalam Raja and arrangements could be made for purchase of huge tracts of land in Pandalam. The 1st accused also is alleged to have defamed the de facto complainant and his wife and thereby, the accused have committed the offences alleged against them.
Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that no money was transferred by the de facto complainant to the bank account of the petitioner and even going by the allegations contained in the First Information Statement of the de facto complainant, the amounts were transferred to the personal accounts of accused 1 and 2. He also submitted that the petitioner had not made any representation that he was a relative of the Panthalam Raja and that the said allegation relates to the 1st accused and not to the petitioner, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the matter and that he has no knowledge of any amount received by the other accused in the case. He further submitted that the petitioner has been in custody from 10.03.2022 and that his continued detention is not necessary for the purpose of any investigation.
Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner along with the other accused had given false promises and made various inducements to the de facto complainant, as a result of which a total amount of nearly Rs.5 Crores was paid by the de facto complainant to the accused in this case. He further submitted that all the aforesaid amounts were transferred through bank accounts and there is clear evidence that the money was siphoned off by the accused. Therefore, it the petitioner is clearly guilty of the offences alleged against him and that he is not entitled to be released on bail at this point of time.
Court held that at present, there is nothing to show that any amount was received personally by the petitioner. The amounts transferred seem to be to the personal accounts of accused 1 and 2 and not to the account of the petitioner. It is also not transferred to the accounts of any company/partnership, of which the petitioner is the shareholder or partner. The petitioner stands on a slightly different footing than the other accused in the case. Therefore, Court grants bail to the petitioner subject to conditions.
Click here to read the Judgment
Judgment reviewed by – Amit Singh