9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (8) TMI 888X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Tarun Kairam is his son. 2. The case was registered on the complaint of Satish Kumar Sharma. The allegation against these two petitioners and their co-accused is that in execution of a criminal conspiracy hatched by the petitioner Surinder Kairam and other members of his family, including the son Tarun Kairam, they have cheated the complainant of more than Rs. 1.5 crores. Prosecution case is that in the year 2000-2001 the accused fraudulently and dishonestly persuaded the complainant to become a partner through his company M/s A.S. Sons (P) Ltd. in a partnership firm M/s Saat Sur Enterprises on the pretended object of carrying out firm/TV Serial business. On misrepresentation and false assurance the petitioner Surinder Kairam, who ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of this amount was taken back from the complainant by making misrepresentation. During investigations it was revealed that M/s Atexavision (India) and M/s Channel G Entertainment both were proprietary firm of the petitioner, Tarun Kairam which had bank account at Standard Chartered Bank, New Delhi. It was further revealed that Subbarao and V. Natrajan were non-existent persons and there was no office of M/s Atexavision in Chennai nor was M/s Channel G Entertainment a subsidiary of Adhikari Brothers nor did it have any office in Calcutta. Sunil Joshi was also not an authorised representative of Adhikari Brothers to negotiate for the purchase of the programme. The investigation also revealed that the programme Golf Club was imported by the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hould be granted to the petitioner. He also contended that the charge-sheet has already been filed. His son Tarun Kairam had also joined the investigation. The petitioner also had a heart surgery. His wife and the daughter have been enlarged on bail. For all these reasons he has prayed for grant of bail to this petitioner. 4. Counsel for Tarun Kairam, petitioner has submitted that the charge-sheet has now been filed against his client also, Therefore, his client will file appropriate bail application before the trial court and till it is decided, he should be granted protection against arrest. 5. Both these petitions are strongly opposed by APP for State. According to her the investigation has revealed that both these petitioners, who ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner and his son Tarun Kairam. She also pointed out that after the arrest of the petitioner Surinder Kairam his son tried to withdraw huge amounts from various bank accounts but the 10 was vigilant, Therefore, he could not succeed. The APP has pointed out to the positive assertion made in the petition of Surinder Kairam that no bail application was filed before this Court prior to the instant petition. She contended that earlier bail application of this petitioner was considered and dismissed on merit on 2.4.2002. She also argued that copy of the order to this court dated 2.4.2002 by which similar bail application of Sunil Joshi was dismissed had been filed with this petition, Therefore, a deliberate false allegation is made in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 96CriLJ1368 where also anticipatory bail application of an accused was refused and it was observed that the anticipatory bail should not be granted where the application for regular bail should have been filed and which the trial court has to consider having regard to the material placed before it. 9. APP has also referred to Subhash Gupta v. State (Delhi Admn) 1998IAD(Delhi)437 where it was observed that consideration for grant or refusal of bail are the nature and gravity of the circumstance in which the offence is committed, position and status of the accused with reference to the victim and the offence, likelihood of his fleeing from justice or repeating the offence, likelihood of tampering with the witnesses and other relevant groun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion but alter they were turned out to be men of these two petitioners. The petitioner Surinder Kairam never invested his own money into partnership as per the terms of the partnership but rotated the money deposited in 30 bank accounts opened in different names to show as if the money was coming from his own pocket though it was the same money which was taken from the complainant. 12. In the instant case the petitioner Surinder Kairam has taken interim bail on the health ground but it appears from the video recording that he had been roaming about like an ordinary healthy man. The perusal of the medical papers submitted by him do not show that he cannot be provided adequate treatment of his disease while remaining in jail. He has commit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
