BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the First day of November Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice S.NAGAMUTHU CRL OP(MD) No.8486 of 2011 1 RAMASAMY, 2 JEGADEESAN, ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED Vs STATE REP.BY, THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ECONOMIC OFFENCE WINGS, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT IN CR.NO.1/2011 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. R.SELVARAJ Advocate For Respondent : MR.K.S.DURAIPANDI, Addl.Public Prosecutor(Crl.Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners are the accused Nos.3 and 2 respectively in Crime No.1 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police for offences under Sections 409, 420 and 120(b) IPC and Section 5 of the TANPID Act. Apprehending arrest, they are before this Court seeking anticipatory bail. 2. According to the case of prosecution, there are totally four accused in this case. The first accused, by name, Venkatesh, is the son-in-law of the first petitioner and brother-in-law of the second petitioner. According to the case of prosecution, all these accused are doing business in the name and style of 'EZEE Marketing' in Aruppukottai. They made publicity that if amount is deposited in the said company, the same would be returned with fabulous interests and other benefits. Believing the same, it is stated that the de- facto complainant deposited some amount in the account of the first accused. Similarly, several public have deposited the amount and the total deposited amount comes to Rs.1,45,00,000/-. But without repaying the said amount collected from the public, the petitioner closed down the business and absconded is the allegation. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would deny all the above allegations. According to him, there is no overt act at all against these petitioners. Taking me through the First Information Report, the learned counsel would submit that, according to the First Information Report, the money was collected, it is only by the first accused and these people have got no connection over the same. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that simply because it is alleged that the company is not a registered one though the company is a registered company the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that by granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners, the investigation would not be hampered with in any manner. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has produced the Case Diary. Referring to the same, he would submit that the total amount swindled is around Rs.1,45,00,000/-, which belongs to several poor people. He would further submit that the investigation is passing through a crucial stage. He would further submit that it is not as though the petitioners are total strangers to the business. They are closely related to the first accused. He would further point out that according to the material available, all these accused were jointly operating the business and therefore, the petitioners are also equally responsible like that of the first accused. Therefore, according to the learned Public prosecutor, the petitioners are not entitled for anticipatory bail. 5.I have considered the above submissions. 6. A perusal of the record would go to show that not only the first accused, but these accused also joined with him and canvassed the poor general public to deposit the amount in their company, thereby promising to repay the same with fabulous interest. They would also canvass that Ezee Marketing is a registered company. Believing the said false representation only, the general public were attracted and they paid the amount. As it is stated by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, as of now, the total amount, which has been collected from the general public, comes to Rs.1,45,00,000/-. No amount has been so far recovered. The first accused is also at large. It is not as though the petitioners are total strangers to the business. They are the father-in-law and brother-in-law of the first accused. Apart from that there are allegations, as of now, found in the Case Diary that these petitioners canvassed along with the first accused for deposits from the general public. Thus, I find that there are lot of primafacie materials and since the investigation is passing through a crucial stage, in my considered opinion, if anticipatory bail is granted, it would surely hamper the further investigation. Further, it will not be possible to recover the amount, which should go to the poor general public. In such view of the matter, this petition deserves only dismissal and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Sd/- 01/11/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1 THE ADDL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI 2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ECONOMIC OFFENCE WINGS, VIRUDHUNAGAR DT ssk/04.11.2011 /3c -2p/- ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.8486 of 2011 Date :01/11/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/