Arunselvakumar v. State Rep.By

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN , J.

The petitioner herein seeks anticipatory bail in Crime No.96 of 2023 registered by the respondent Police for the offences under Sections 408,120(B) and 109 IPC.

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that, he has been falsely implicated as accused in this case. Apprehending arrest from the respondent police, he seeks bail to the petitioner.

3.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) stated that the defacto complainant is the Tirumala Milk Products Pvt. Ltd and it is stated they supply milk through the tankers and for that purpose pre-paid cards have been issued by Indian Oil Corporation for filling fuel to the tankers. It is stated that the petitioner herein/A2, is a logistics manager and A1, is the fleet manager. It is further stated that whenever the cards are swiped in the petrol bunk, there would be a small 1/5

credit point and that could be converted into cash and gift vouchers and they can purchase articles from any of the online shopping portals like amazon and other such portal. Using those gift vouchers, any product could be purchased. It is alleged that in this manner, a sum of Rs.64 lakhs have been utilized for the personal benefits of the accused persons.

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner however stated that the petitioner herein has nothing to do with the entire issue. The only aspect is about an e-mail that has been sent to IOCL with a copy marked to the present petitioner that they should not disclose anything. He further states that the petitioner receives several such e-mails and claims that the petitioner is not directly involved. 5.This particular statement is very strongly disputed by the learned counsel for the intervenor who had entered appearance and states that credit points so accumulated by filling fuel could be converted into gift voucher in online platforms and any products across the platforms could be purchased and benefits would be accrued to anyone who have the gift vouchers. 2/5

6.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) stated that none of the accused had been taken into custody and therefore investigation had not even commenced.

7.The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that there is a delay in the audit for one year and further stated that the notice under Section 41 A Cr.P.C had been issued and he would co-operate with the investigation. 8.The entire issue requires deep investigation with respect to the role of A1 and the present petitioner. Taking all these factors into consideration, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

07.11.2023 2/2 3/5

gd C.V.KARTHIKEYAN , J.

gd 4/5

07.11.2023 2/2 5/5