M.Raphael v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Sixth day of February Two Thousand Eighteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice R.PONGIAPPAN CRL OP(MD) No.1813 of 2018 1 M.RAPHAEL 2 N.POONGOTHAI 3 R.THAMARAI SELVI ... PETITIONERS Vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE EOW, TRICHY.
CRIME NO.1/2016 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioners : Mr.K.P.S.PALANIVEL RAJAN Advocate For Respondent : Mr.A.ROBINSON, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners/A7, A9 and A10, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 406 and 420 of IPC., and Section 5 of Tamilnadu Protection of Depositors Act, 1997, in Crime No.1 of 2016, seek anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners are the Directors of the companies, viz. Pamara Investments, Pamara Benefit Funds, Pamara Granites, Pamara Chit Funds, etc., They announced the Public that if any one invested in their firms, then the investors would get good returns from their company. Thereafter, many people invested in the petitioners' firm. But, the petitioners did not repay the returns. Hence, one, Krishnamoorthy, who is one of the depositors, lodged a complaint before the respondent police. Based on the said complaint, this case has been registered for the above said crime.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and they are no way connected with the offence, as alleged by the prosecution and prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent on instructions, would submit that the cheated amount is not yet recovered from the petitioners and 31 complaints https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
have been received from the depositors against these petitioners for the same set of allegations. According to the prosecution, the investigation is in progress.
5. The submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for either side are considered. It is alleged that during the time of occurrence, the petitioners herein along with some other accused collected deposits from the Public in the name of Pamara Investments. After maturity, they have not repaid the amount to the Public as agreed. Then only, one of the depositors lodged a complaint and thereby, this case was registered. Now, according to the prosecution, 31 complaints have been received against these petitioners. Further he added that as per the above complaints, nearly, Rs.2 Crores had been cheated by these petitioners. So, considering the nature of offence committed by these petitioners, this Court came to the conclusion that custodial interrogation is necessary for completing the investigation. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. sd/- 06/02/2018 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE EOW, TRICHY.
2 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI PJL JAM/26/02/2018/PM-PN/ SAR 1 / 2P-3C
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.1813 of 2018 Date :06/02/2018 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/