G.Vignesh @ Vigneshkumar v. The State Rep By,

Crl.O.P.No.15596 of 2022 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

The petitioners who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 406, 408, 417, 477-A and 420 of IPC, in Crime No.4 of 2022, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is the Director of Sri Venkateswara Wheat Mills Pvt. Ltd, Pattukonampatti, Dharmapuri District and A1 is the salesman of the said mill. It is alleged that the petitioners misappropriated the amount to the tune of Rs.3,57,44,322/-, thereby cheated the defacto complainant. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and no way connected with the alleged offence. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned counsel for Intervener also produced the account details of the petitioners. Though they were working as drivers, they are dealing with cash lakhs and lakhs through their account.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that there are totally 8 accused in which the petitioners are arrayed as A2, A4, A5 and A7. The petitioners supplied atta flour to various customers and received amount from them and not accounted to the defacto complainant, thereby cheated the defacto complainant. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

6. It is seen that there are totally 8 accused in which the petitioners are arrayed as A2, A4, A5 and A7. The crux of the allegation is that the defacto complainant is a whole seller of atta flour. From 01.08.2018 to 16.10.2021, the defacto complainant supplied atta flour to various customers. A1 is a salesman and others are working under the defacto complainant. The first petitioner was working as a supervisor and others were working as driver. After supplying to the respective customers, the petitioners received amount and not accounted to the defacto complainant. The petitioners and other accused misappropriated to the tune of Rs.3,57,44,322/-.

7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is very much required in this case. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

8. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 11.07.2022 mn

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

mn Crl.O.P.No.15596 of 2022 11.07.2022