BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Nineteenth day of December Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT THE HON`BLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH CRL OP(MD) No.15641 of 2011 A.KUMARESAN ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.3 Vs THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE CBI/SCB, CHENNAI, CR NO. R.C. NO. 9(S)/2010. ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. M.AJMAL KHAN Advocate For Respondent : Mr.Rozario Sundarraj, Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences under Section 120 (b) r/w 409, 420, 468 r/w 471 and Section 13(2) r/w 13(i)(d) of P.C. Act, in Crime No.(R.C.No.9 (S)/2010) on the file of the respondent police and hence, seeks anticipatory bail. 2. Heard Mr.M.Ajmal khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Rozario Sundarraj, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases appearing for the respondent. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit in his argument that the petitioner is ranked as A3 in this case and the main allegation against him was that he acted as a middleman for the commission of misappropriation of funds and had committed the offence along with the Bank Manager. He would further submit that the petitioner is a Tamil Teacher by profession and he is working in Panchayat Union Middle School, Kinathupatti and thus he has got a permanent residence in the society. He would further submit in his argument that the petitioner had obtained various bank loans with the Syndicate Bank, Dindigul Main Branch as well as the Thamaraipatti Branch. However, the property was brought for sale under SARFAESI Act and the said money have been adjusted to one of the bank loans and the other branch being different one the said money was not adjusted for the said loan and the petitioner was not https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ responsible for that. He would further submit in his argument that the mere non payment of the loan amount will not result in commission of crime and there is no intention for the petitioner to do any crime as alleged by the prosecution. Therefore, he would request the Court that he may be granted anticipatory bail and ready to abide any condition likely to be imposed against him. 4. The learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases would submit in his argument that there is a clear case of collusion between the petitioner and the Bank Manager only with the connivance of the petitioner. The proceeds of the SARFAESI proceedings have been adjusted to one account leaving the other account and the said amount was directly paid by the Bank Manager to the petitioner. He would further submit that the said act would clearly proved the act of collusion. He would further submit that the public fund has been defrauded by the Bank Manager and the petitioner has helped for the same. He would further submit that the petitioner is a Tamil Teacher has to profess mobility had committed the offence and therefore, it is not a case for granting anticipatory bail. He would also submit that the custodial interrogation may be necessary for this case and if for any reason, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail, necessary conditions may be imposed for the purpose of having interrogation by the respondent police. 5. Considering the submissions made by both sides, I could see that the main accusation against the petitioner was that he was acting as a middleman and in collusion with the main accused Bank Manager, he had helped the prime accused to waste the public funds. Apart from that the petitioner had obtained several loans without discharging the earlier loans, which is contrary to the norms for issuing loan and the act of the petitioner had also resulted in wasting of public funds. The said allegations made by the prosecution have to be decided only during the investigation. The main contention raised by the learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases was that the custodial interrogation may be necessary for the petitioner. There is no doubt that the property of the petitioner was also brought for auction under SARFAESI Act and one of the loans was satisfied from and out of the proceeds. Whether the remaining proceeds have not been adjusted with another loan was wanton or deliberate has to be considered only during the investigation. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6. In the said circumstances, I can find that the petitioner has got a permanent residence and root in the society since he is working as a Tamil Teacher in the Panchayat Union Middle School, Kinathupatti. Therefore, I could see that the petitioner could be granted anticipatory bail, but with stringent conditions. The respondent police can utilise the said condition of appearing before the respondent police for interrogating the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance before the learned Special Judge for C.B.I Cases Madurai 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 Special Judge for C.B.I Cases Madurai and on further condition that the petitioner shall stay at Chennai and appear before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders. The petitioner shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously. 8. The petitioner shall appear before the learned Special Judge for C.B.I Cases Madurai 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/- 19/12/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1. THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR CBI CASES, MADURAI 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE CBI/SCB, CHENNAI, 3. THE SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR CBI CASES, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI +1. CC to M/S. M.AJMAL KHAN Advocate SR.No. GH : 22.12.2011 : 3p/5c ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.15641 of 2011 Date :19/12/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/