R.Yesudoss v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Sixteenth day of November Two Thousand Seventeen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.DHANDAPANI CRL OP(MD) No.15645 of 2017 R.YESUDOSS ... PETITIONER / ACCUSED NO.13 Vs STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ECONOMIC OFFENCE WING-II (EOW), VIRUDHUNAGAR, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT.
CRIME NO.3/2016 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.A.ROBINSON Advocate For Respondent : M/S.K.ANBARASAN, Government Advocate(Crl.Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner/Accused No.13, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 406,420,120(B) of I.P.C and Section 5 of TNPID (F&E) Act, in Crime No. 3 of 2016, seeks anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is one of the Director of the A1 company, its called Virutcham Agro Limited at Sivakasi, wherein the company collected huge amount from the 313 innocent persons.
However, he did not paid the amount to the innocent depositors for which the complaint was lodged against the company and other directors. Though, originally petitioner is not in the F.I.R., after investigation he was arrayed as A13 in this case. Subsequently, he was included in the alteration report. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners/A3 & A4 already arrested and released on anticipatory bail in Crl.O.P.No.23856 of 2016 on 11.05.2017 and other petitioners are also arrested and released on anticipatory bail. He would further submit that the petitioner is innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the State submitted that he did not dispute the above said facts.
5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side), he did not dispute the above said facts, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner/A13 with certain conditions. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Special District Judge for TNPID cases, Madurai, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent Police or to the Police Officer, who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that:
(i) the petitioner shall report before the respondent police, Virudhunagar, daily at 10.00 a.m., for a period of four weeks;
(ii) the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial; (iii) the petitioner shall make themselves available for interrogation including custodial interrogation as and when required by the investigation officer; (iii) the petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail;
(iv)On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law and the anticipatory bail granted stands cancelled automatically.
sd/- 16/11/2017 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
TO
1. THE SPECIAL DISTRICT JUDGE FOR TNPID CASES, MADURAI.
2. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ECONOMIC OFFENCE WING-II (EOW), VIRUDHUNAGAR,VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT.
3. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
+1. CC to M/S.A.ROBINSON Advocate SR.No.34535 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.15645 of 2017 Date :16/11/2017 MS/PM-PN/SAR.4/20.11.2017/2P.5C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/