BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Seventh day of December Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH CRL OP(MD) No.14252 of 2011 K.S. PALANICHAMY ... PETITIONER)/ACCUSED NO.2 Vs THE STATE REP BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE EOW POLICE(UNIT II), DINDIGUL DISTRICT, CRIME NO. 2/2011 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT RATHNAKUMAR ..INTERVENOR/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.N.ANANTHAPADMANABHAN Advocate For Respondent : Mr.K.S.DURAIPANDIAN Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) For Intervenor : Mr.K.P.S.PALANIVEL RAJAN PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner/A2 is arrayed as A2 and he was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 25.09.2011 for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 409, 420 I.P.C. and Section 5 of TNPID Act, in Crime No.2 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek bail. 2.Heard Mr.N.Anandapadmanapan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.K.P.S.Palanivel Rajan, learned counsel appearing for the intervenor and Mr.K.S.Duraipandian, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit in his argument that the petitioner is ranked as A2 in the case and he was arrested and remanded to judicial custody from 23.09.2011 onwards. He would further submit that the petitioner has not committed any offence, but he had handed over moneys to the extent of Rs.2 crores for distribution among the depositors with the defacto complainant, but he has misappropriated the same to which, he has given a complaint against him in crime No.386 of 2011 at Batlagundu Police Station and is pending investigation. 4.He would further submit that the complaint would disclose that there is a failure in returning the amount of Rs.53,64,000/- that too from 25.07.2009 onwards and the petitioner and his wife are having properties worth several crores and the said properties were already given undertaking in other case and an order has been passed that the petitioner as well as his wife shall not alienate or encumber the said properties. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5.He would further submit that the petitioner has filed an affidavit, to that effect, in the additional typed set of papers, with an undertaking not to operate or encumber or alienate the properties enlisted in the said affidavit described in 16 items. He would also submit that the wife of the petitioner viz., Bagyalakshmi has also filed an affidavit to that effect that she will not operate or encumber or alienate the properties described to the extent of 11 items in the affidavit itself and therefore, the petitioner may be granted bail. 6.The learned counsel appearing for the intervenor would submit that the petitioner had cheated to the tune of several crores, but this complaint was filed to the extent of 53,64,000/- only and there is no truth in the statement that the defacto complainant has given the complaint only after the petitioner's complaint. For a fact, the defacto complainant has presented the complaint on 02.07.2011 before the Batlagundu police and obtained receipt and the same has not been registered. He would further submit that the Global Trading is different from Passi and since the complaint given by the defacto complainant was not registered, he has to prefer the present complaint before the respondent police and it was registered and investigation is pending. 7.He would further submit that the petitioner is involved in many cases and therefore, suitable directions may be issued against the petitioner in the event of any grant of bail. He would further submit that in his argument that in an earlier occasion, this Court has passed an order in the batch of Criminal Original Petitions in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.6444 of 2008 dated 08.03.2010, appointing an Administrator in the said Trading Company and had imposed several conditions for the welfare of the depositors. He would request the Court that such similar stringent conditions may be imposed in the event of granting bail to the petitioner. 8.The learned Government Advocate (criminal side) would submit in his argument that the investigation is pending and the petitioner is in incarceration from 25.09.2011 and if for any reasons, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, suitable conditions may be imposed for the secured presence of the petitioner and also safety and security of the amount cheated by the petitioner. 9.Considering the submissions made by all the counsel, I could see that the petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 25.09.2011. The alleged cheating of funds was to the tune of Rs.53,64,000/-. It is the contention raised by the intervenor that the petitioner is involved in several other cases and suitable directions may be given in the event of granting bail. Of course, the petitioner was granted bail in other case, on the basis of undertaking given by the petitioner that he would not sell the property belonging to the petitioner and his wife. 10.According to the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the said property belonging to the petitioner https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and his wife worth several crores. In an earlier occasion, this Court had passed an order in respect of some other cases, by appointing an Administrator and a scheme for payment of money to the depositors. The said case is entirely a different one and the involvement of deposits are much more that the present case is not similar to that of the said case. The depositors are numerous in the said case and the total amount said to have been defrauded was to the extent of 12,72,75,473/-. Therefore, I do not find any similarity for passing such an order, while granting bail in this case. 11.No doubt, the petitioner is incarceration from 25.09.2011 for a period of 74 days. The investigation is still pending. However, the petitioner was granted bail in yet another case in Crl.R.C.No.242 of 2011 dated 29.06.29011, in which the cancellation of bail granted to A1 was set aside by this Court and conditions have been imposed on the basis of the undertaking given by the petitioner and his wife during the pendency of the said case. Therefore, I could see that the similar condition would be sufficient for the grant of bail to the petitioner, while ordering bailment to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to order release of the petitioner. 12. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail 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, Special Court for TNPID Act Cases, Madurai and on further condition that the petitioner shall appear before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders and the petitioner shall not operate or encumber or alienate the properties belonging to him as per the affidavit filed by him and also the petitioner's wife viz., Baghyalakshmi shall not operate or encumber or alienate the properties belonging to her as undertaken by her in the affidavit filed by her. The petitioner shall also surrender his passport, if any, had by him before the trial Court at the time of furnishing the sureties. sd/- 07/12/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1.THE SPECIAL JUDGE SPECIAL COURT FOR TNPID ACT CASES, MADURAI 2.THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, MADURAI 3.THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI 4.THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE EOW POLICE(UNIT II), DINDIGUL DISTRICT +1. CC to M/S.N.ANANTHAPADMANABHAN Advocate SR.No.42799 rl/6c – 7.12.2011 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.14252 of 2011 Date :07/12/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/