BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Twenty Ninth day of August Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice R.MALA CRL OP(MD) No.11071 of 2011 1 A.MATHIMALAR JENMARAKINI 2 M.KAMALA ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS. 1 & 2 Vs STATE REP.BY, THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH THANJAVUR ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.V.K.VIJAYARAGAVAN Advocate For Respondent : MR.A.RAMAR, Government Advocate(Crl.Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- Apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 409, 406, 467, 465, 468, 477(A), 420 and 120(b) I.P.C., in Crime No.24 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police, the petitioners/A1 and A2 have come forward with the present application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioners are arrayed as A1 and A2; A1 is the President and A2 is the Vice President of Nanchikottai Panchayat; the case of the prosecution is that during the period 2007 and 2008, A1 and A2 have misappropriated the amount to the tune of Rs.78,99,950/- in four various heading as if, they had received higher amount and issued receipts for lower amount and committed misappropriation of Rs.7,500/- and while approving the plan, they ought to have received Rs.300/- per plan and they have not received Rs.300/- and hence, they have caused loss to the Panchayat to the tune of Rs.900/- and during their tenure, as if they have conducted repairs of electrical works and they have issued 4 cheques for a sum of Rs.76,64,999/- in favour of Annai Electricals, but no such Electricals is existence and lastly, they issued different cheques for a sum of Rs.2,26,610/- without mentioning the name of the receiver and thus, they have caused loss to the tune of Rs.78,99,950/- . The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that during the period 2007 and 2008, there was an audit has been done and no discrepancy has been pointed out and the District Collector has taken steps and issued notice under Section 205 for removal of the President and immediately, they preferred a writ petition and then only, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ complaint has been given by the Revenue Divisional Officer and the investigation is considerably over and since they apprehend arrest, he prayed for the enlargement of anticipatory bail. 3.Repudiating the same, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that A1 and A2 are the President and Vice President of the Panchayat and during their tenure, they have misappropriated and caused loss to the tune of Rs.78,99,950/- and they have issued for a sum of Rs.76,64,999/- in favour of one Annai Electricals, which is a fixatious company and no such company is existence. He would further submit that so many cheques have been issued to fixatious persons and they collected the amount by A3 and in such a way, they have caused loss to the Panchayat and the investigation is going on and hence, he prayed for the dismissal of the application. 4.I have Considered the rival submissions made on either and perused the materials available on record. 5.The alleged occurrence has been taken place between 2007 and 2008. The complaint has been given on 07.07.2011. It is true that every financial year, there must be an audit and reconciliation of accounts. The major portion of misappropriation is that doing electrical works for 4 years and they have issued 4 cheques for a sum of Rs.76,64,999/- in favour of Annai Electricals. As per the prosecution case, there is no such Annai Electricals and it is only a fixatious person. As per the F.I.R., the said Annai Electricals is shown as A4. All the transactions has been borne by records and the investigation agency can very well seize the documents from the department. Even then, the case has been registered on 07.07.2011, till date, even though the petitioners were not arrested and neither they interfered with the investigation nor absconded the jurisdiction. Hence, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners/A1 and A2 with certain conditions. 6.Accordingly, the petitioners/A1 and A2 are ordered to be released on bail in the event of their arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Thanjavur, and on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the petitioners shall report before the Court concerned daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders and they shall appear before the respondent, whenever, they are needed for interrogation. The petitioners shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Scrupulously. 7. The petitioners shall appear before the concerned Magistrate within a period of 15 days from the date on which the order copy made ready, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail stands dismissed. Sd/- 29/08/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.II THANJAVUR 2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTATE THANJAVUR AT KUMBAKONAM 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH THANJAVUR 4 THE ADDL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI +1. CC to M/S.V.K.VIJAYARAGAVAN Advocate SR.No.29570 ssk/30.08.2011 /6c -2p/- ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.11071 of 2011 Date :29/08/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/