1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT (Criminal Jurisdiction) Wednesday, the Twenty First day of December Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH CRL OP(MD) No.16682 of 2011 1 SANTHAKUMAR 2 MARIMUTHU :PETITIONERS / ACCUSED NOS.3&4 -Vs- THE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CCIW, THIRUVARUR POLICE STATION, THANJAVUR DISTRICT. CRIME NO.2/2011 :RESPONDENT For Petitioner : M/S. A.ARUN PRASAD, Advocate For Respondent : MR.K.S.DURAIPANDIAN, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSCUTOR. PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners/A3 and A4 were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 09.01.2011 for the alleged offence under sections 409, 467, 468, 471, 477 A read with 120(B) I.P.C. in Crime No.2 of 2011, on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek bail under section 439 of the code of Criminal Procedure. 2.Heard Mr.A.Arun Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and MR.K.S.Duraipandian, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit in his argument that the petitioners have been ranked as A3 and A4 and they are incarceration from 09.11.2011 and the co- accused has been released on bail. He would further submit that the 1st petitioner is working as a Clerk and the 2nd petitioner is working as Salesman in Vadakarai, Alathur, Primary Agri Co- operative Society. 4.He would further submit that the petitioners are not aware of the alleged commission of offence and they are working as Clerk and Salesman and they have no active participation in the said offence. He would further submit that various other accused persons have been released on anticipatory bail and therefore, the petitioners may also be considered for bail. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 5.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) would submit in his argument that the petitioners, who are working in the Society had connived with the main accused A1 and A2 and others and had misappropriated a sum of Rs.17,95,653/- and the petitioners, who are working as Clerk and Salesman, they cannot be considered as not acted with the offence. He would further submit that the investigation is pending and the petitioners are not entitled for bail. Since the gravity of the offence is more. 6.Considering the submissions made by both sides, this court could see that the petitioners are ranked as A3 and A4 and they are working as Clerk and Salesman in the said Society. According to the prosecution, they have also connived with other co- accused and had misappropriated a huge amount belonging to the Society. The remaining accused are the fake loanees. The grant of anticipatory bail to the fake loanees will not in any way be equated with the petitioners since the gravity is more than those loanees. 7.In such circumstances, I feel that it is not a fit case for grant of regular bail, since there is a possibility of tampering of evidence and absconding the accused from the clutches of law. 8.In such circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioners, seeking for bail, at this stage is dismissed. sd/- 21/12/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO: 1.The Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 2.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Trichy. 3.The Inspector of Police, CCIW, Thiruvarur Police Station, Thanjavur District. RP/28.12.2011/2P/4C. ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.16682/11. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/