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.16191 of 2011 1 JEGATHEESAN 2 RAMASAMY ... PETITIONERS / ACCUSED NO.2&3 Vs THE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ECONOMIC OFFENCES WING UNIT II (EOW) VIRUDHUNAGAR, CRIME NO.1/2011 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. M.AJMAL KHAN Advocate For Respondent : MR.K.S.DURAIPANDIAN, Addl. Public Prosecutor (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, 420, 120() of I.P.C., and Section 5 of TNPID Act, in Crime No.1 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police, the petitioners have approached this Court for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Heard Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, 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 are ranked as A2 and A3 and they have not committed any offence as stated in the FIR and even as per the FIR, the petitioners are stated to have canvassed for the collection of money with the defacto complainant and the FIR would go to show that the amount to the tune of Rs.6,60,000/- was paid by the defacto complainant only to the first accused and not to these accused. The petitioners 1 and 2 are the relatives of the first accused and there is no stake in the concerned. 4.He would rely upon the judgment reported in 2009-2- L.W. (Crl.) 1059 Tmt.Prasannadevi v. State of Tamil Nadu and submit that the persons, who canvassed the collection of money cannot be proceeded and the only allegation against the petitioners was that they have canvassed and the defacto complainant parted the money only to the first accused. He would further submit that the first accused has been granted bail and he has been observing conditions and therefore, there is no question of tampering of the witnesses or hampering the investigation and no prejudice would be caused to the prosecution in the event of the petitioners being released on anticipatory bail. 5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit in his argument that the petitioners names are found in the FIR and total money said to have been cheated by the petitioners is to the tune of Rs.1,45,52,800/- and the investigation is offing. He would further submit https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ that the first accused was arrested and released on bail and that will not have any right to the petitioners for the grant of anticipatory bail. He would further submit that there are 22 victims/complainants, who have preferred the complaint against the accused persons and the petitioners are also to be enquired in respect of the said case. 6.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I could see that the petitioners are ranked as A2 and A3 and they are not actual owners of the EZEE trading. It is also to note that the said concern was owned by the first accused person. According to the defacto complainant, he had parted with the money of Rs.6,60,000/- only with A1, on the canvassing of the petitioners. According to the judgement of this Court, the practice of implicating the innocent relatives of the persons, who are not responsible for the management of the affairs of the firm, has to be deprecated. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I could see that the investigation is offing and the petitioners are said to have canvassed with the defacto complainant and the defacto complaint had parted money with the first accused and not with the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of their arrest or on their appearance before the learned Special Court, (TNPID Act), Madurai and on each of them 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 appear before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders. The petitioners shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously. 8. 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/- 21/12/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1. THE SPECIAL JUDGE, TNPID ACT, MADURAI. 2. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ECONOMIC OFFENCES WING UNIT II (EOW) VIRUDHUNAGAR. 3. THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1. CC to M/S. M.AJMAL KHAN Advocate SR.No.45179 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.16191 of 2011 Date :21/12/2011 RJ/22.12.11 2p/5c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/