Ravi Pandiyan, v. The Deputy Superintendent Of
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Ninth day of November Two Thousand Seventeen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.DHANDAPANI CRL OP(MD) No.15168 of 2017 1 RAVI PANDIYAN, 2 BALAMURUGAN, 3 MAREESWARAN, 4 JAWAHARLAL NEHRU, 5 MURUGESAN, 6 KALEESWARAN, 7 KALIMUTHU, 8 LINGASAMY, 9 THOMAS STEPHAN, 10 KARTHIGAI RAJA, 11 SANTHALINGAM, 12 ANGAPPAN, ... PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED NOS.1,2,4, 13,14 TO 21 Vs STATE REP.BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTI-CORRUPTION WING, VIRUDHUNAGAR, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT.
(CRIME NO.07 OF 2017) ... RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT For Petitioners : Mr.G.MARIMUTHU Advocate For Respondent : Mr.K.ANBARASAN, Government Advocate (Crl.side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners, who are arrayed as accused, apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 13(2) r/w. 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 om Crime No.07 of 2017, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners are the employees of TASMAC shops and Godown. The Department of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) conducted a surprise check headed by the District Inspection Officer and at that time they recovered a huge sum of Rs.3,55,550/-, which was allegedly received from the owners of the various private Alcoholic Beverages companies in order to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
enhance the sale of their brands. Therefore, the Department of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) lodged a complaint against the petitioners under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence, as alleged by the prosecution and in fact the money, recovered by the Department of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC), is only pocket money for their personal uses. Accordingly, they pray for anticipatory bail.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the State, on instructions, would submit that all the petitioners are working in the different cadre in the TASMAC. On a secret information, the Department of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) conducted a check and recovered a huge money from the petitioners, which were collected from the various owners of the private Alcoholic companies in order to boost the sale of their brands. He further submitted that the investigation is still in progress to identify several persons, who are engaged with the corruption.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the gravity of offence, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Hence, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.
sd/- 09/11/2017 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
TO 1 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTI-CORRUPTION WING, VIRUDHUNAGAR, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT.
2 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.15168 of 2017 Date :09/11/2017 TA SH:CM:SAR-2-15.11.2017-2P-3C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/