"Nearly 100 Cases Registered Against Them": Kerala HC Denies Bail To Family Accused Of Violating BUDS Act

The Kerala High Court rejected the bail applications filed by four family members who were accused of committing criminal breach of trust and violating the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019.

In that context, the Bench of Justice CS Dias observed that, "the prima facie materials that show the petitioners’ involvement in the crime, that the investigation in the case is at its nascent stage, there are nearly 100 cases registered against the petitioners, and that there is a likelihood of the petitioners intimidating the witnesses and tampering with the evidence, I am not convinced that the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail at this stage."

The first and second accused, a husband and wife, along with their sons, the third and fourth accused, sought bail from the High Court. They were charged with offences under Sections 406, 409, and 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC, and Sections 4 and 22 of the BUDS Act.

They were accused of dishonestly inducing approximately 15 lakh rupees in deposits from the complainant. The first accused, the Managing Partner of M/s. Nedumparambil Credit Syndicate, along with the other accused, promised a 12.5% annual interest and repayment upon request but failed to return the capital and interest.

The accused argued that the complainant voluntarily deposited the money and that they had a license under the Kerala Money Lenders Act, 1958. They also claimed that the offences under the BUDS Act were bailable and sought bail under Section 409 of the IPC, citing that they had been in custody for 70 days, exceeding the 60-day investigation limit mandated by Section 167 of the CrPC.

The Public Prosecutor contended that the accused had cheated depositors and siphoned off their money, with over 100 similar offences registered against them in various police stations.

The High Court observed that under Section 409 of the IPC, the punishment can include life imprisonment or a term extending up to ten years. Therefore, the Magistrate can order judicial custody for up to 90 days according to Section 167 of the CrPC.

Further, the Court determined that the petitioners were not eligible for statutory bail under Section 167 CrPC due to the severity of the offences. The Court stated, "Given the above discussions and considering that Section 409 IPC allows sentencing an accused to life imprisonment, and according to the ratio in Rakesh Kumar Paul's case, the investigation period should align with the gravity of the offence, it is clear that for an offence under Section 409 IPC, the period for filing the charge sheet is extended up to 90 days."

Cause Title: Raju George @ NM Raju vs State of Kerala & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024/KER/53202)

Click here to read/download the Judgment