ITEM NO.1 (PH)           Court No.7               SECTION II

           S U P R E M E   C O U R T   O F   I N D I A                          RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS                      Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No(s).7858/2008

(From the judgement and order dated 07/10/2008 in  BA No. 6047/2008  of The HIGH COURT OF  KERALA AT ERNAKULAM)

REMANI K.                                            Petitioner(s)

                     VERSUS SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE & ORS.                      Respondent(s)

(With appln(s) for exemption from filing O.T. and anticipatory bail and office report )

WITH SLP(Crl) NO. 577 of 2009 (With appln.(s) for anticipatory bail and office report)

Date: 25/03/2009  These Petitions were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALTAMAS KABIR         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CYRIAC JOSEPH

For Petitioner(s) Mr. K.T.S. Tulsi, Sr.Adv. Mr. Krishnan Venugopal, Sr. Adv. Mr. B.N. Sivasankaran,Adv.

                    Mr. A. Raghunath,Adv.                       For Respondent(s) Mr. M.L. Varma, Sr.Adv.                      Mr. R. Sathish,Adv.

Mr. Satya Mitra, Adv.                                   UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following                                O R D E R  

The SLP(Crl.) No. 7858/08 and SLP(Crl.) No. 577/09  are taken up together  

for consideration, inasmuch as both arise out of the same judgment, and the relief  

prayed for, is also the same.  SLP(Crl.) No. 7858/08 has been filed by Dr. Remani K.  

and the  SLP(Crl.) No. 577/09 has been filed by Chandramathy Amma.S.

-2-

Between  27.8.2008  and  5.1.2008  several  First  Information  Reports  were  

lodged in respect of the two  Financial Institutions known as Total (4) U. and  NEST  

said to be under the management of one Sabrinath who was a young man of about 19  

years and had studied upto Class XII.  Initially, the name of the petitioner in SLP(C)  

No. 7858/08 was shown only in respect of  FIR No. 584/08 of  the Medical  College  

Police Station.  Subsequently, the investigation of the said complaints was made over  

to the CID Criminal Branch  and certain supplementary  FIRs were lodged and the  

names of the two petitioners were added as accused in almost all the cases which  

were  registered  under  Section  420,  406/34  read  with  Sections  120-B  IPC.   The  

allegations against the accused  is that they had conspired with Sabrinath and the  

other accused had induced the public to invest large sums of  money  in the Financial  

Institutions by promising larger returns by way of interest.  Subsequently, however,  

the said amounts were utilised by the accused persons for their own benefit.  It is also  

the  case  of  the  Investigating  Authorities  that  after  a  while  the  two  Fiancial  

Institutions were closed down and about one thousand  persons, who had invested in  

the said two Institutions, were cheated of the amounts which they had deposited and  

that  the  same  has  been  misappropriate  by  the  co-conspirators,  including  the  

petitioners, although, they themselves claimed to be the victims 0of the fraud.

The amount involved is quite large, being about Rs. 50  

-3-

crores and the allegations against the petitioners are very serious.  Since these two  

Special Leave Petitions against the refusal of the High Court to grant Anticipatory  

Bail, it would not be proper for us to go into a detailed discussion as to the merits of  

the case, but from what has been produced before us, we are convinced that this is  

not a fit case for grant of Anticipatory bail as there are sufficient materials which

make out  a  prima  facie  case  against  the  petitioners.  We  are  unable  to  convince  

ourselves that the order of the High Court requires any interference.

The  Special  Leave  Petitions  are  accordingly  dismissed,  but  this  will  not  

prevent the petitioners from applying for regular bail.

We make it clear that the observations made in this Order are only for the  

purpose of considering the petitioners' prayer for Anticipatory Bail and should not  

prejudice the petitioners during the trial or during consideration of any application  

for regular bail if made on behalf of the petitioners.

            (Ganga Thakur)            (Juginder Kaur)             P.S. to Registrar                Court Master