1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT (Criminal Jurisdiction) Friday, the Second day of December Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH CRL OP(MD) No.14568 of 2011 P.MOHIDEEN KATHU BAVA :PETITIONER / ACCUSED -Vs- THE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CBI-EOW-CHENNAI, THIRD FLOOR, RAJAJI BHAVAN, CHENNAI - 600 090. :RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner:M/S. N.MOHIDEEN BASHA,Advocate For Respondent:MR.ROZARIO SUNDARRAJ,SPL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR CBI CASES PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 Cr.P.C. ORDER:The Court Made the following order:- The petitioner/accused apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence under Section 120-B read with 420 I.P.C., Sec. 7(1) (a) (ii) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 read with Clause 25 (1) (2) of Fertilizer Control Order, 1985, in R.C.6(E)/2011-CBI-EOW-CHENNAI, on the file of the respondent police and hence, seeks anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2.Heard Mr.N.Mohideen Basha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.Rozario Sundarraj, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases, appearing for the State. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit in his argument that the petitioner was also impleaded as one of the accused in the case filed by the respondent in R.C.6(E)/2011-CBI-EOW-CHENNAI and the petitioner is apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondents since he was dealing with the retail business of Pottassium Chloride. 4.He would further submit that the petitioner used to purchase Fertilizers from the wholesale agents at Madurai and supply the same in retail for customers to be utilized for agricultural purpose and he has not malpracticed or deviated the purpose. The petitioner had produced certain documents as called for by the respondent police in the notice received by him on 13.10.2011 and subsequently, he was directed to produce certain other documents on 18.10.2011 and accordingly, he had produced those documents from his custody and the petitioner was also examined and his statement was recorded by the respondent/police. He would further submit that he co- operated with the police and is ready to co-operate in future also. 5.He would further submit in his argument that the petitioner has not committed any offence, but, one Pacific Agro Tech has purchased the Fertilizers from the petitioner and was said to have misused the same in contravention of Fertilizer Control Order and therefore, the petitioner has nothing to do with the offence committed by the said agency. 6.He would further submit in his argument that he has nothing to do with the alleged offence and he has got a permanent residence and permanent root in the society and he is ready to co-operate with the investigation. He would further submit in his argument that this Court had granted anticipatory bail for A8 and A9 in Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.9384 and 9412 of 2011 on 30.08.2011 and the petitioner is also standing on the same footing and therefore, the petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail. 7.The learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for CBI Cases would submit in his argument that the petitioner is one of the retailers, who is supposed to have sold the Pottassium Choride supplied to them to the agricultural operators and not to any other person. He would further submit that the petitioner had sold Pottassium Chloride to the tune of 36 Metric https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 Tonne, not for agricultural purpose. He would further submit that the petitioner had also participated in the crime and had caused huge loss to the beneficiaries by violating the purpose of the scheme. He would further submit in his argument that even though the petitioner had appeared on two occasions, he has not produced the entire documents kept by him and thus he did not co-operate with the enquiry. 8.He would further submit that even though the investigation is based upon the documents, the petitioner did not produce the entire documents, required by the respondent and made a hurdle in the investigation. He would further submit that the standing of A8 and A9 cannot be compared with the petitioner herein, since the petitioner had not produced the entire documents relating to the investigation and made himself unavailable for further enquiry. Therefore, the release of A8 and A9 can not be equated for the petitioner's release. He would further submit that the investigation is still pending and custodial interrogation may be necessity for the purpose of the further progress of investigation. He would therefore request the Court to dismiss the bail petition. 9.I have given anxious consideration to the arguments advanced on either side. 10.It is an admitted fact that the petitioner is a retailer and he has to sell the Pottassium Chloride to the agricultural user. It is also averred by the petitioner that one Pacific Agro Tech has purchased the Fertilizers from the petitioner and misused the same in contravention of Fertilizer Control Orders. 11.According to the accusation that the petitioner has also colluded with the said Pacific Agro Tech for the purpose of selling the said Pottassium Chlorite for the purposes other than agriculture. It is also the complaint of the respondent police that the petitioner is not co-operating with the investigation. Even though the quantum of Pottassium Chloride said to have been misused by the petitioner is lesser than the quantum of Pottassium Chloride misused by A8 and A9, the petitioner is not co-operating with the respondent police for investigation and he was not available for interrogation. 12.The said conduct of the petitioner makes him not entitled for the relief sought for. Therefore, I could see that the release of A8 and A9 cannot be compared and accordingly, the petitioner cannot seek bail on the said ground. Moreover, the petitioner is bound to produce certain other documents which are required by the respondent police for further investigation. Therefore, the argument that a custodial interrogation may be necessary is much convincing and hence, I find a different stand for the petitioner from that of A8 and A9. In view of the fact that the investigation is offing and the petitioner is required for further interrogation, I find no prima facie case for him to be released on anticipatory bail. 13.Accordingly, the anticipatory bail petition is dismissed. sd/- 02/12/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO: 1.MR.ROSARIO SUNDARRAJ, SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR CBI CASES, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. 2.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,CBI-EOW-CHENNAI, THIRD FLOOR,RAJAJI BHAVAN,CHENNAI - 600 090. RP/13.12.2011/2p/3c. ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.14568 of 2011,Date:02/12/2011. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/