Vummidi Kritish v. Deputy Inspector General Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 17-04-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN CRL OP No. 9250 of 2025 Vummidi Kritish Petitioner(s) Vs The State Represented by, Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Economic Offences Branch, Chennai.

(Cr.No.RC0692025E0002 of 2025) Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s):

Mr.Sanjay Ravichandran For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Balaji, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PRAYER: To enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest by the respondent in Crime No. RC0692025E0002 of 2025 on the file of the Respondent.

ORDER

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B r/w 420, 468, 471 of IPC, 1860 and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruptiion Act, 1 / 6

1988 in Crime No. RC0692025E0002 of 2025, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that A1 and A2 had purchased the property from the petitioner herein, who has been arrayed as A4, for a total sale consideration of Rs.5,00,00,000/-; that thereafter the first and second accused in conspiracy with the bank panel valuers, obtained a huge loan by inflating the value of the property and did not repay the amount and thus committed the aforesaid offence.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had nothing to do with the alleged offence; that the petitioner had sold the property for valuable consideration and in any case, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required and prayed for anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police, while opposing the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, reiterated the prosecution case and on instructions submitted that the out of the sanctioned limit, a sum of Rs.2.5 crores was transferred to the account of the petitioner and if he enlarged on bail, he may not co-operate 2 / 6

with the investigation and filed a counter to that effect.

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6. Admittedly, the petitioner is the erstwhile owner of the property. According to him, the amount credited to his account is the sale consideration of the property and he is entitled to the same.

7. Taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegations, submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and since, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required for the purpose of investigation, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

9. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on her appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned XI Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Egmore, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall 3 / 6

stand dismissed and on further condition that: [a] the petitioner and the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation;

[c] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial; [d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

[e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560]; 4 / 6

[f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S.

drl 17-04-2025 To

1. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Economic Offences Branch, Chennai.

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

5 / 6

SUNDER MOHAN J.

drl CRL OP No. 9250 of 2025 17.04.2025 6 / 6