M. Pandi Revathi v. The State Through Si Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Third day of January Two Thousand Nineteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.NIRMAL KUMAR CRL OP(MD) No.22333 of 2018 M.PANDI REVATHI ... PETITIONER / 4th ACCUSED Vs STATE THROUGH THE SI OF POLICE TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL DISTRICT.

IN CRIME NO 1061/2018 U/S 406,420,294(b),506(i), of IPC ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : Mr.K.R.SINGARAVELAN, Advocate For Respondent : Mr.S.CHANDRASEKAR, Additional Public Prosecutor For Intervenor : Mr.L.SHAJI CHELLAN, Advocate PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 294(b), 506(i) of IPC , in Crime No.1061 of 2018, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. There are totally seven accused in this case. The petitioner herein is arrayed as A4. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is a partner in Anandharaj & Company who is a whole sale dealer in sugar business. The petitioner herein acted as a mediator for this business, wherein the petitioner ordered for 600 quintals of sugar on 05.10.2018 and 420 quintals of sugar on 08.10.2018. Totally worth Rs.25,92,400/- sugar as supplied. Subsequently, after supply when the payment was asked the petitioner started evading herself and on verification, it was found that GST numbers provided by the accused were fake one.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner acted only as a mediator and she has no role in the said transactions. The persons who have received the sugar have been arrested.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. The learned counsel for the intervenor would submit that all the accused have joined together and cheated the defacto complainant. He would also submit that the petitioner herein is the brain behind the entire criminal acts and she shares equal share with the other accused.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the petitioner herein has committed the above offence. She had given a fake GST numbers and cheated the defacto complainant. It is also seen that this petitioner is also involved in offence of similar nature and custodial interrogation of the petitioner is very much essential. He would also submit that A1 in his confession has stated that the petitioner was paid Rs.7,81,000/-as loot. 6.

Taking into consideration, the serious nature of allegations in the First Information Report and the fact that the petitioner is the mediator for this entire transaction and that the petitioner has been paid a brokerage of Rs.7,81,000/- for the entire transaction and the fact there are several cases pending against the petitioner and that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is very much essential for repayment of the said amount and sugar, this Court is of the view that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner and this petition is dismissed.

sd/- 03/01/2019 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO

1. THE SI OF POLICE TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL DISTRICT.

2. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

+1CC TO Mr.K.R.SINGARAVELAN, Advocate, SR NO.40196 +1CC TO Mr.L.SHAJI CHELLAN, Advocate, Sr No.90 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.22333 of 2018 Date :03/01/2019 MS/VR/SAR-4/07.01.2019/2P.5C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/