K.Kumaravel Pandiyan v. Inspector Of Police

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 28.11.2022 for the alleged offence under Sections 166, 167, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 409 and 120(B) of I.P.C. in Crime No.1 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant alleged in his complaint that during 01.10.2020 to 30.09.2021, the officers, who worked in Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation at Vellore Regional office along with the staff, who worked in the direct paddy procurement centres, in collaboration with individuals procured paddy without proper scrutiny and also cheated the Government by not implementing the government scheme properly for personal gain and misuse of state scheme, thereby caused loss to the tune of Rs.315 crores to the State Government by not giving incentives to the farmers. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is an agriculturist and he cultivated paddy from their family members land and he helped the other agriculturists, who are not well known, how to tender their harvest paddy to T.N.C.S.C., but the petitioner helped him, and by utilising the said situation, Civil Supplies Corporation officials committed so many irregularities and they were arrested. He would submit that he has not received any excess amount from Civil Supplies Corporation and he only tendered paddy quantity and he has not at all committed any offence as alleged by the respondent police. He would further submit that the investigation is almost completed and that the petitioner has been suffering incarceration from 28.11.2022. Hence, he prayed to grant bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for respondent would submit that totally, thirty accused involved in this case and the petitioner is arrayed as A17. He would submit that there was a scam in civil supplies department and A1 to A11 are officials of Civil Supplies Corporation. He would also submit that the petitioner is a merchant in a

paddy procurement centres. He would also submit that if he is released on bail, he will tamper the witnesses and hamper the investigation and the investigation is not yet completed. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by both counsel and considering the gravity of offence committed by the petitioner by creating forged documents in the name of fake owner, he obtained Rs.1.7 crores of money, and also considering the fact that there is possibility of tampering the witnesses and hampering the investigation, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 14.12.2022 rpp

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

rpp 14.12.2022