BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Tenth day of August Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT THE HON`BLE MS.JUSTICE R.MALA CRL OP(MD) No.10085 of 2011 C.SUBRAMANI ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 Vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH KARUR CR.NO.17/2011 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.G.R.SWAMINATHAN Advocate For Respondent : MR.A.RAMAR, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) For Intervenor : MR.R.M.LOGANATHAN, for Intervenor PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner is arrayed as A1 and he was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 14.06.2011 for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 120(b), 405, 463, 477(A), 380 and 109 I.P.C., in Crime No.17 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seeks bail. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there was a partnership firm between the defacto complainant and six others and the petitioner is a Managing Partner. He would further submit that there was a dispute in respect of the financial partnership and hence, the petitioner has abducted by the defacto complainant and therefore, the petitioner's wife has filed a petition in H.C.P.No.342 of 2011 on 06.06.2011. He would further submit that a case has been registered in Crime No.17 of 2011 against the petitioner and his relatives under Sections 120(b), 405, 463, 477(A), 380 and 109 I.P.C. and the petitioner was arrested on 14.06.2011 and he is in custody for more than 50 days. He would further submit that since it is a dispute in respect of the partnership firm, the account to be settled and as per the version of the defacto complainant Rs.3,10,00,000/- has been misappropriated by the petitioner herein, but he has nothing to do with the same and he is in custody for more than 50 days and hence, he prays for enlargement on bail. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the intervenor would submit that there was a partnership business between the defacto complainant and six persons and the petitioner was Managing Partner and he was authorised to deal with the amount and they are having nine financial companies, giving finance for purchasing of vehicle and the petitioner herein has taken away the R.C.Book of the some of the vehicles and promissory notes executed by the borrowers. He further submitted that the petitioner himself has admitted that on 20.05.2011, he voluntarily gave a statement stating that he has misappropriated a sum of Rs.3,10,00,000/- and he is ready to pay that amount. The defacto complainant has also filed some documents, which would show that the petitioner has purchased the property in the name of his wife, brother-in-law and mother and the investigation is going on and hence, he prays for the dismissal of this https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ application. 4. The learned Additional Public prosecutor would submit that the petitioner is A1, A2 is the father of A1, A3 is the mother of A1, A4 is the wife of A1, A5 is the sister of A1 and A6 is the brother-in-law of A1. He would further submit that the petitioner has misappropriated a sum of Rs.3,10,00,000/- during the period between 2003 and 2011 and A2 to A6 were already enlarged on anticipatory bail and the investigation is considerably over and hence, he prays for dismissal of this application. 5. Considering the rival submissions made by both sides, admittedly, there was a partnership business between the defacto complainant and six others during the period between 2003 and 2011. The defacto complainant is the one of the partner and the petitioner is the Managing Partner. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner is managing the entire business and it is also admitted fact that they are doing the Auto Finance Company and they are having nine finance companies. Admittedly, the defacto complainant has filed a statement of accounts of the petitioner herein which would show that after 2003, the petitioner has purchased the property in the name of his wife, brother-in-law and mother from the year 2006-2010 and on 20.05.2011, it was stated that the petitioner herein has accepted that he has misappropriated a sum of Rs.3,10,00,000/- and he is ready to pay that amount. 6. At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that it was obtained under undue influence and hence he was not accepted the same. Admittedly, this is a partnership firm and there was a misappropriation of Rs.3,10,00,000/- but all the particulars are borned by records and already A2 to A6, who are the close relatives of A1 to whose names, the property were purchased, were enlarged on anticipatory bail, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner with certain conditions. 7. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on her 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 Judicial Magistrate No.1, Karur, and on further condition that the petitioner shall report before the Court concerned daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders. sd/- 10/08/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.I, KARUR. 2. -DO- THRO THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KARUR. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, TRICHY. 4. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, KARUR. 5. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1. CC TO M/S.G.R.SWAMINATHAN ADVOCATE SR.NO.27079 +1CC TO MR.R.M.LOGANATHAN, INTERVENOR SR.27128 SR : 11.08.2011 : 2p/8c ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.10085 of 2011 Date :10/08/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/