K. Guruvandavar, v. State Rep. By The Inspector
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Second day of June Two Thousand Fifteen PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM CRL OP(MD) No.9043 of 2015 K.GURUVANDAVAR, ..PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 Vs.
STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VIRUDHUNAGAR ECONOMIC OFFENCE WING-II, VIRUDHUNAGAR.
(CR.NO.1/2014) ..RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.R.NIRESHKUMAR Advocate For Respondent : Mr.K.V.RAJARAJAN, Government Advocate (Criminal Side) For Intervenor : Mr.K.VIRALINATHAN, Advocate PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C.
ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner/A1, who was remanded to judicial custody by the respondent police on 19.03.2015 for the alleged offence under Sections 420, 120(b), 294(b), 506(i) IPC in Crime No.1 of 2014 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the accused have collected Rs.2,60,000/- assuring to give loan to the members of Self Help Group. But they did not disburse loan amount.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is working as a Manager of the Finance Company namely, SMF Fund Agency and he himself is a victim as he was not paid his salary by the Company for more than four months. The learned counsel further submitted that the third accused is the Managing Director of the company and he was granted bail by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.78 of 2015 and the second accused who is the Assistant Manager was granted bail in Crl.O.P.No.7741 of 2015 and hence, this application can be considered. 4.Mr.
Viralinathan, learned counsel appearing for the intervenor vehemently opposed the bail petition stating that the accused 1 and 2 were canvassing to deposit in the finance company run by the third accused and the defacto complainant believing the words of the first accused had deposited the amount. He would further submit that the company has released the fund of Rs.4,80,000/- to the first accused, however it was not paid to the Self Help Group. 5.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) submitted that the accused 2 and 3 were already granted bail and the major part of investigation is over.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail on the following conditions. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srivilliputhur, and on further condition that the petitioner shall appear before the respondent police daily at 10.00 a.m until further orders.
sd/- 02/06/2015 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, SRIVILLIPUTHUR, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT. 2 -do-thro'THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, VIRUDHUNAGAR AT SRIVILLIPUTHUR.
3 THE ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT,MADURAI. 4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VIRUDHUNAGAR ECONOMIC OFFENCE WING II, VIRUDHUNAGAR.
5 THE OFFICER INCHARGE, SUB JAIL, VIRUDHUNAGAR. +1. CC to M/S.R.NIRESHKUMAR Advocate SR.No.26888 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.9043 of 2015 Date :02/06/2015 PBK/PPS 02/06/2015 ::2P-7C:
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/