1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Twenty Fourth day of August Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice S.PALANIVELU CRL OP(MD) No.10896 of 2011 K. NEELAKANDAN NAIR ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED-2 Vs THE STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ECONOMIC OFFENCE WING, NAGERCOIL CRIME NO.1/2009 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. V.JANAKIRAMULU Advocate For Respondent : MR. A.RAMAR, Additional Public Prosecutor 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 punishable under Sections 120(b) and 407 I.P.C., in Crime No.1 of 2009, on the file of the respondent police and hence, seeks anticipatory bail. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submits that the petitioner is innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that he is a partner of M/s.Universal Foods. The said company where the petitioner is one of the partners is doing business in importing raw cashew kernels and selling the same. The said company entered into three Associateship Agreements with de-facto company and obtained credit facility. For due repayment, properties worth Rs.5,85,00,000/- (Rupees five crores eighty five lakhs only) were give as security to the de-facto complainant by Universal Foods. The petitioner's company has also paid a sum of Rs.2.65 crores towards part payment. 3.He further submitted that the first and third accused have already been released on bail and 35% of the outstanding amount is yet to paid and the petitioner's company is prepared to pay the same. He further submitted that after six years the complaint has been lodged and hence, he prays for anticipatory bail in favour of the petitioner. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the de- facto complainant went to the godown of A4 and found that some of the goods were illegally stolen from the godown and caused damaged to the tune of Rs.3,00,52,073/- and the investigation is liable to be completed and hence, he prays for dismissal of this application. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact the accused 1 and 3 have already been released on bail, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 6. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, in the event of his arrest or on his appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thuckalay, 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 petitioner shall report before the Judicial Magistrate, Nagercoil daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders. The petitioner shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Scrupulously. 7. The petitioner 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/- 24/08/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THUCKALAY 2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KANYAKUMARI AT NAGERCOIL 3 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, NAGERCOIL 4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ECONOMIC OFFENCE WING, NAGERCOIL 5 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1. CC to M/S. V.JANAKIRAMULU Advocate SR.No.28901 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.10896 of 2011 Date :24/08/2011 TR : 26.08.2011: 2p/7c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/