BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Ninth day of September Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice R.MALA CRL OP(MD) No.9477 of 2011 1. SATHYAPRIYA 2. VASANTHA LAVANYA ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED RANK NOT KNOWN Vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ECONOMIC OFFENCES WING, CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, RAJAJI BHAVAN, BEASANT NAGAR, CHENNAI. IN CRIME NO.5/E/2011 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. R.GANDHI Advocate For Respondent : Ruzzario Sundarraj, Spl PP for CBI Cases PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 read with clause 25(1)(2) of the Fertilizer (Control) order, 1985 and sections 120(B) and 420 of the Indian Penal Code in crime No.RC.5/E/2011-CBI/EOW/Chennai on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are only the dealers and they are nothing to do with the commission of offence. He would further submit that a case has been registered against A1 to A13 for the offence under Sections 120(b) r/w.420 IPC and Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 r/w clause 25(1)(2) of the Fertilizer (control) Order, 1985 and already A2 and A4, who are also the Directors of A1 were arrested and enlarged on bail. A-11 who is one of the supplier of Potassium chloride, which is the raw material for the production of Pottassium Chlorate, and A8 and A9 have also been enlarged on anticipatory bail. He would further submit that the investigation is considerably over and all the facts are borne by records and hence, he prayed for enlargement on anticipatory bail. 3. The learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for CBI cases would submit that the case has been registered against 13 persons and A1 is the firm and A2 to A6 are the Directors of A1 and they procured the subsidized fertilizer grade Potassium Chloride from the unauthorized firms viz., A7 to A13 who are not authorized to deal with potassium chloride to A1 to A6 which was using only for agricultural purposes and caused loss to the tune of Rs.39,60,000/- . He would further submit that the 2nd petitioner has sold 180 Metric Tonne of Potassium Chloride to A1 to A6 and caused loss to the tune of Rs.54,00,000/-.He would further submit that the investigation is also going on and hence, he prays for the dismissal of this application. 4. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. 5. Perusal of the records would show that A1 is a firm and A2 to A6 are the Directors of A1 firm and they purchased Potassium Chlorate, which https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ is the raw material for preparation of Potassium Chloride from A7 to A13, who are not the authorized dealers since, the same was not available in open market for industrial purpose and hence, the case been registered against them. 6. The alleged occurrence has been taken place in between 2009 and 2010. Admittedly all the facts are borne by the records. As per the version of the learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI cases, the 1st petitioner is concerned he sold 132 Metric Tonne of Potassium Chloride to A1 to A6 and caused loss to the tune of Rs.39,60,000/- and in respect of the 2nd petitioner is concerned he sold 180 Metric Tonne to A1 to A6 and caused loss to the tune of Rs.54,00,000/-. As already stated, A1 to A6 were enlarged on bail and A8 and A9 were also enlarged on anticipatory bail and this is a case mainly based on the records. The records have already been seized by the respondents. Even though the case has been registered on 14.03.2011 neither, the petitioners interfered with the investigation nor absconded from the jurisdiction. Therefore I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, with certain condition. 7. Accordingly the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance before the learned Chief judicial Magistrate, Madurai and 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 learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the petitioners shall report before the court concerned daily morning at 10.30 am., until further orders. The petitoners shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C scrupulously. 8. The petitioners shall appear before the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate with in a period of 15 days from the date on which the order copy is made ready, failing which the petition for anticipatory bail stand dismissed. sd/- 09/09/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ECONOMIC OFFENCES WING, CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, RAJAJI BHAVAN, BEASANT NAGAR, CHENNAI. 2. THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MADURAI 3. THE SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR CBI CASES MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADRUAI +1. CC to M/S. R.GANDHI Advocate SR.No.31010 GH : 13.09.2011 : 2p/5c ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.9477 of 2011 Date :09/09/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/