BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Tenth day of November Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice S.NAGAMUTHU CRL OP(MD) No.14053 of 2011 1 R. SIVASUBRAMANIAN 2 ALWAR SIVASUBRAMANIAN 3 R. SHANMUGAM ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.8,9 & 11 Vs STATE REP.BY, THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE SPE/CBI/ACB, CHENNAI, (RC MA 1 A 0031 OF 2011) ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. S.C.MUTHUSARAVANAN Advocate For Respondent : MR.ROZARRIO SUNDARRAJ, Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners are the accused in RC MA 1 A0031 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police for offence under Sections 120(b), read with 420, 468 read with 471 IPC, they are before this Court seeking anticipatory bail. 2. According to the case of prosecution, the petitioners 1 and 3 are running a proprietary concern in different names. The second petitioner is the wife of the first petitioner. The first petitioner secured loan from Indian Overseas Bank, Palayamkottai Branch to the tune of Rs.135 lakhs by producing certain documents. Similarly, the third petitioner secured loan to the tune of Rs.110.5 lakhs from the said Bank by producing certain documents. The second petitioner secured a car loan to the tune of Rs.10 lakhs. Later on, they had fallen in dues. The car was taken by the bank. Finally by way of one time settlement, the interest and penal interest were waived and the balance of amount was paid by these petitioners on 08.04.2011. A no due certificate was also given to the petitioners. 3. Subsequently, in the internal audit, it came to light that the petitioners had given an inflated balance sheet and also produced bogus documents for securing loan from the bank. The first accused happens to be the Manager of the Bank. In collusion with him, according to the allegation, with a view to de-fraud the bank, the petitioners obtained loan and the act of the petitioners would amount to offence as stated above. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would stoutly deny the allegations. According to him, all the loan transactions are genuine. He would submit that the balance sheet submitted was also genuine. On a request made by the petitioners, one time settlement was allowed and accordingly the entire amount due to the bank was paid. Under the said settlement, only the interest and penal interest alone were waived. Thus, according to the learned counsel, absolutely there is no allegation of cheating, forgery or any other fraud upon the bank. 5. The learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI cases would stoutly oppose this petition. As a matter of fact, a counter affidavit has also been filed narrating the above facts. According to the learned Special Public Prosecutor the balance sheet produced by the petitioners are all inflated one and the document produced by them are also not genuine. However, the bank manager, who was the first accused in this case, with the collusion of these petitioners with a view to de-fraud the bank, had sanctioned loan to the petitioners and the entire loan amount was withdrawn soon after the sanction and the same was utilised for some other purpose. He would, however, concede that under the one time settlement, the interest and penal interest were waived and the balance of amount was duly paid by these petitioners. He would further submit that the fraud came to light only in the internal audit and the complaint was registered o 29.08.2011. The learned Special Public Prosecutor would further submit that if anticipatory bail is granted to these petitioners, it would surely affect the further progress in the investigation. 6. I have considered the above submissions. 7. The question whether the balance sheet produced by the petitioners are inflated, the real balance sheet or they show inflated transaction is a matter to be further investigated by the respondents. As of now, according to the petitioners, the balance sheet produced are all genuine. It is also the case of the petitioners that all the documents produced are all genuine and there was no fraud played upon the bank. These allegations and the counter allegations are to be investigated thoroughly by the respondent. The fact remains that as early as on 08.04.2011, on the offer made by these petitioners, the higher authorities of the bank considered the request for one time settlement and ultimately permitted them to clear all the entire loan under the said one time settlement. The learned counsel for the petitioners also produced the no due certificate issued by the bank to the said effect. Thus, even according to the respondent, the petitioners cannot have any access to the document. Thus, apprehension of tampering all documents also does not arise. Thus, prima facie, I find from the very fact that the one time settlement was paid and the amount due to the bank was cleared, I am of the view that the petitioners have made out a case for grant of anticipatory bail. 8. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail, in the event of arrest or on his appearance before the learned Principal Special Judge for CBCID Cases, Madurai, on executing a separate 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 respondent police or the police officer who https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the petitioner shall report before the respondent police every day at 10.30 a.m. until further orders. The petitioner shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C scrupulously. Sd/- 10/11/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1 THE PRINCIPAL SPECIAL JUDGE FOR CBCID CASES, MADURAI 2 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE SPE/CBI/ACB, CHENNAI 3 THE ADDL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI 4 THE SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR CBI CASES, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI +1. CC to M/S. S.C.MUTHUSARAVANAN Advocate SR.No.38836 ssk/11.11.2011 /6c -2p/- ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.14053 of 2011 Date :10/11/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/