BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Twentieth day of October Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice S.NAGAMUTHU CRL OP(MD) No.13769 of 2011 1 K.S.PALANICHAMY 2 P.BACKIYALAKSHMI 3 RAMADOSS ... PETITIONERS / ACCUSED 2, 3 AND 6 Vs STATE REP BY:: THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE EOW (UNIT-II), DINDIGUL DIST IN CR.NO. 2 OF 2011 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT RATHNA KUMAR ..INTERVENOR For Petitioner : M/S. N.ANANDAPADMANAPAN Advocate For Respondent : MR. K.S. DURAIPANDI, GOVTERNMENT ADVOCATE (CRL SDIE) For Intervenor : MR. K.P.S. PALANIVEL RAJAN, ADVOCATE, PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- There are three petitioners in this case and they are accused Nos.2, 3 and 6 in Crime No.2 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police. The first accused is the Company by name Global Capital Trading Services. The first petitioner is the Managing Director of the said Company and the other two petitioners are stated to be the Directors of that Company. The offences involved in this case are under Sections 409, 420 and Section 5 of TNPID Act. They have been in judicial custody from 23.09.2011 and 24.09.2011 respectively. Seeking bail, they are before this Court with this petition. 2. So far as the first petitioner is concerned, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this petition. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn in respect of the first petitioner. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. So far as the petitioners 2 and 3 are concerned, they are the Directors of the first accused Company. The allegation is that the first petitioner being the Managing Director of the Company, induced the de-facto complainant to deposit the amount in the first accused Company thereby promising to repay the same with fabulous interest. It is the further allegation that the de-facto complainant has collected a sum of Rs.53,64,000/- from his friends and relatives from 25.07.2009 and 11.08.2009 and deposited the same in the first accused Company. But the Company has not repaid the said amount as promised. On these allegations, the present has been registered. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the intervenor would submit that as against the first petitioner viz., the Managing Director of the accused Company, there are number of cases of this nature, in number of places. He would further submit that the petitioners 2 and 3 being the beneficiaries of the first accused Company looted the amount and therefore, they are not entitled for bail. 5. But the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that in respect of the affairs of the Company, on an earlier occasion a case was registered in Crime No.6 of 2010 on the file of E.O.W, Anna Nagar, Madurai. In which also, all these petitioners are accused and they were arrested and released on bail. For the very same affair, according to the learned counsel, again the present case has been registered by the respondent - E.O.W (Unit - II), Dindigul District and the registration of same itself is a clear abuse of process of law, learned counsel contended. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the intervenor would submit that in the earlier case, the de-facto complainant is not the de-facto complainant and that was a case registered by someone else. He would further submit that in the said case, the petitioners filed an affidavit before this Court, wherein they undertook that they will not sell the properties belonging to them. It is further brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel that despite the order of this court, the police has not attached the properties belonging to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the Company of the petitioners. 7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would oppose this bail application. According to him, investigation is in progress and the offence is so grave. But he is not having any explanation in respect of the registration of the earlier case in Crime No.6 of 2010 on the file of E.O.W, Anna Nagar, Madurai. 8. I have considered all the above submissions. 9. At the outset, I have to state that so far as the petitioners 2 and 3 are concerned except the fact that they are also the Directors of the first accused Company, there is no other direct allegation against them. Of course, it is true that the second petitioner is the wife of the first petitioner viz., the Managing Director of the Company, that alone cannot be a ground to hold that the second petitioner is also liable for punishment for any offence allegedly committed by the first petitioner. Admittedly, in respect of the affairs of the Company viz., the first accused, already a case has been registered in Crime No.6 of 2010 on the file of the E.O.W, Anna Nagar, Madurai and the same is under investigation and the petitioners are on bail in that case. Now in the present case, the de-facto complainant has come forward with this case for the amount looted from him alone. According to him, he collected amount from his friends and relatives to the tune of Rs.53,64,000/- and deposited the same in the first accused Company. It is not known whether these transactions are also covered in the earlier case or not. 10. But the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relying on the typed set of papers filed before this court would submit that to the de-facto complainant on 25.09.2009, a sum of Rs.1,20,00,000/- was paid and on 26.09.2009 a sum of Rs.80,00,000/- was paid. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has produced the bank statement of the first accused Company. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 11. Having regard to the overall view of all the facts and circumstances, the fact that already there is a case under investigation on the file of E.O.W, Anna Nagar, Madurai, the fact that the petitioners were arrested and released on bail and the fact that as per the bank statement, more than Rs.2,00,00,000/- was paid by the first accused Company to the de-facto complainant and also other attendant circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioners 2 and 3 deserve to be released on bail, but with stringent conditions. 12. In the result, so far as the first petitioner is concerned, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn and so far as the petitioners 2 and 3 are concerned, this petition is ordered and bail is granted to the petitioners 2 and 3 on the following conditions: - (i) The Petitioners 2 and 3 shall be enlarged on bail on executing a separate bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with two sureties each for a likesum to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Special Court for TNPID Act, Madurai; and (ii) the Petitioners 2 and 3 shall report before the respondent police, everyday at 10.30 a.m. until further orders. sd/- 20/10/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1 THE SPECIAL JUDGE, SPECIAL COURT FOR TNPID ACT, MADURAI 2 THE ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT MADURAI 3 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL PRISON, MADURAI 4 INSPECTOR OF POLICE EOW (UNIT-II), DINDIGUL DIST 5 THE OFFICER IN CHARGE, SUB JAIL, NILAKKOTTAI 1CC to M/S. N.ANANDAPADMANAPAN Advocate SR.No.36303: 1CC TO MR. MR. K.P.S. PALANIVEL RAJAN, ADVOCATE,SR:36293: DM::2011:OCTOBER:::20:: ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.13769 of 2011 Date :20/10/2011 4p:8c:: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/