1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT (Criminal Jurisdiction) Thursday, the Twenty Ninth day of September Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice R.MALA CRL OP(MD) No.13008 of 2011 MANIKANDAN @ SATHEESHKUMAR :PETITIONER / ACCUSED-4 -Vs- THE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ECONOMIC OFFENCE WING, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT. CRIME NO.1/2011 :RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. R.SELVARAJ, Advocate For Respondent : MR.A.RAMAR, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.439 Cr.P.C. ORDER:The Court Made the following order:- The petitioner is arrayed as A4 and he was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 18.08.2011 for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 409, 420 r/w 120(b) I.P.C. and Section 5 of TNPPDL Act, in Crime No.1 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seeks bail. 2.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is only a driver under A1 to A3 and he is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the first accused is the owner of Easy Marketing Trading Company and A2 and A3 are the relative of A1 and A4 is the driver and his monthly income is Rs.3,000/-. He further submitted that on the basis of the complaint given by one Kalaiselvei, a case has been registered under Sections 409, 420 r/w 120(b) I.P.C. and Section 5 of TNPPDL Act and hence, the petitioner was arrested on 18.08.2011. He further submitted that the petitioner has nothing to do with the alleged commission of offence and hence, he prays for enlargement on bail. 3.Refuting the same, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the accused 1 to 3 are the partners of Easy Marketing Trading Company and A4 is the driver under them. He further submitted that the accused have given a false promise and collected a sum of Rs.1,45,52,800/- from 22 persons. The defacto complainant also deposited a sum of Rs.10,70,000/-, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 however, they are not repaid that amount and hence, a complaint has been given on 16.08.2011. He further submitted that A1 to A3 were absconding and hence, he prays for dismissal of this application. 4.Considering the rival submissions made by both sides and also considering the fact that the accused 1 to 3 are the partners of Easy Marketing Trading Company and A4, who is the petitioner herein, is the driver and the only allegation against him is that he also convinced the depositors that the company will repay the amount promptly with the higher rate of interest, except this, no allegation has been made against the petitioner and he is only the driver and the partners of the Easy Marketing Trading Company is yet to be arrested and the investigation is considerably over, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner with certain conditions. 5.Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his 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 Special Court under TANPID Court, Madurai and on further condition that the petitioner shall report before the Court concerned daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders. sd/- 29/09/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO: 1.THE SPECIAL JUDGE UNDER TANPID COURT, MADURAI. 2.THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. 3.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ECONOMIC OFFENCE WING, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT. 4.THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, MADURAI. +1. CC to MR.R.MANICKAM Advocate SR.No.34014. RP/30.09.2011/2p/6c. ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.13008/2011 Date :29/09/2011. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/