Dismissed

J.Yakya Narayanan v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC6 Dec 2013CRL OP(MD)/18122/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. regarding a financial consultancy case involving alleged cheating and fraud, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court denied the petitioner's bail. The court held that the petitioner failed to take sincere steps to settle dues despite an undertaking given during interim bail, observing that the petitioner possessed exclusive knowledge of assets

What did the court decide?

Bail application dismissed; petitioner remains in judicial custody.

J.Yakya Narayanan Vs the Inspector of Police — Banking and Recovery | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶2

Friday, the Sixth day of December Two Thousand Thirteen

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.SATHYANARAYANAN

¶5

CRL OP(MD) No.18122 of 2013

¶6

J.YAKYA NARAYANAN ... PETITIONER / ACCUSED NO.1 R.THANGARAJ ... PETITIONER/INTERVENER IN MP(MD)No.1 OF 2013 B.SURULIRAJ ... PETITIONER/INTERVENER IN MP(MD)No.2 OF 2013 S.THIYAGARAJAN ... PETITIONER/INTERVENER IN MP(MD)No.3 OF 2013 G.PARAMESWARI ... PETITIONER/INTERVENER IN MP(MD)No.4 OF 2013 M.MANOHARAN ... PETITIONER/INTERVENER IN MP(MD)No.5 OF 2013 K.RAJESWARAN ... PETITIONER/INTERVENER IN MP(MD)No.6 OF 2013 T.V.T.JANAKIRAMAN ... PETITIONER/INTERVENER IN MP(MD)No.7 OF 2013 SASEE JANAKIRAMAN ... PETITIONER/INTERVENER IN MP(MD)No.8 OF 2013 P.PUVENDRAN ... PETITIONER/INTERVENER IN MP(MD)No.9 OF 2013 K.SATHEESH ... PETITIONER/INTERVENER IN MP(MD)No.10 OF 2013 G.SURIYANARAYANAN ... PETITIONER/INTERVENER IN MP(MD)No.11 OF 2013 R.SOUNDARARAJAN ... PETITIONER/INTERVENER IN MP(MD)No.12 OF 2013

¶7

Vs THE STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ECONOMICAL WING, MADURAI, CITY POLICE STATION, MADURAI DIST, CR.NO.1/2013 ... RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT

¶8

For Petitioner : M/S.P.AJU TAGORE Advocate for the Petitioner

¶9

For Respondent : MR.K.CHELLAPANDIAN, Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.K.V.Rajarajan, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side)

¶10

For Intervenor's Advocates:

¶11

MR.M.M.EQBAL,Advocate IN MP(MD)No.1 of 2013 MR.T.LAJAPATHI ROY,Advocate IN MP(MD)No.2 of 2013 MR.R.KARUNANITHI Advocate IN MP(MD)No.3 of 2013 MR.S.M.A.JINNAH Advocate IN MP(MD)No.4 of 2013 MR.I.PINAYGASH Advocate IN MP(MD)No.5 of 2013 MR.S.LENIN PRABHU Advocate IN MP(MD)No.6 of 2013 M/S.R.VIJAYALAKSHMI Advocate IN MP(MD)No.7 of 2013 M/S.G.KAVITHA Advocate IN MP(MD)No.8 of 2013

¶12

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

¶13

MR.R.RAJESH KUMAR Advocate IN MP(MD)No.9 of 2013 MR.P.SURESH KUMAR Advocate IN MP(MD)No.10 of 2013 MR.J.RAMAMOORTHY Advocate IN MP(MD)No.11 of 2013 MR.M.SARANGAN Advocate IN MP(MD)No.12 of 2013

¶14

PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C.

¶15

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶16

There are totally three accused. This petitioner is arrayed as A1. He along with two others said to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 of I.P.C. read with 120(b) of I.P.C. and Section 5 of TNPID Act.

¶17

2.The petitioner herein/A1 has surrendered before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vadipatti, Madurai District on 13.08.2013 in crime No.653 of 2013 of Anna Nagar Police Station and was remanded to judicial custody and thereafter, on P.T.warrant, his custody was secured in this case.

¶18

3.The case of prosecution is that the petitioner and two other accused floated a financial consultancy firm in the name and style of 'Sun Financial Consultancy' and they collected deposits under various schemes from the public and he also made a promise of high returns in respect of deposits made by the public.

¶19

4.It is the further case of the prosecution that by adopting such ingenuous method, collected huge sums of money and neither they paid the interest nor paid the principal. In that position, one of the complainant viz., R.N.Nirmala Nageshwari has given a complaint. Based on which, also a case in crime No.1 of 2013 was registered by Economic Offences Wing- II, Madurai for the alleged commission of offences under Sections 406, 420 read with 120(b) of I.P.C. and Section 5 of TNPID Act, 1997.

¶20

5.According to the prosecution, the investigation reveals that a sum of Rs.1.22 Crores has been collected by adopting such method.

¶21

6.A2 viz., Krishnakumar was enlarged on bail, vide order dated 09.10.2013 made in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.14529 of 2013 and A3 viz., Ganesh was enlarged on bail, vide order dated 19.09.2013 made in Crl.O.P. (MD) No.15902 of 2013, by taking into consideration of the fact that he has settled the money to 500 persons to the tune of Rs.2 Crores.

¶22

7.This Court, vide order dated, 21.10.2013, granted interim bail for three weeks to the petitioner/A1 subject to conditions, by taking into consideration of the representation that he should settle the amount dues and also further details of assets purchased by him. Subsequently, the matter was adjourned for number of times and all those occasions, the interim bail granted to him was extended.

¶23

8.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/A1 has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he is falsely https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ implicated and while he is on interim bail, has taken all sincere efforts to secure the documents pertaining to the properties

¶24

purchased by him and today, he has handed over three registered document Nos.1302 of 2012, 1303 of 2012 and 1304 of 2013 from the office of the Sub Registrar, Karungalakurichi.

¶25

9.It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner will collect the details in respect of the properties purchased by him and also the amount dues and payable to the public and also furnish names of persons who had availed the loan by the said company and therefore, prays for bail.

¶26

10.Per contra, Mr.K.Chellapandian, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent has drawn the attention of this Court to the counter submitted by the respondent and would submit that the petitioner and two other accused has floated the above said financial company with a knowledge that they will not be in a position to settle the amount to the depositors and collected huge amounts of money and investigation so far revealed that they have collected Rs.1.22 Crores.

¶27

11.It is the further submission of the learned Additional Advocate General that the petitioner, who happened to be the Managing Director of the Company played a major role in collecting money from the innocent public and by utilising public money, amazed wealth by purchasing properties and also made deposits in the name of Benamies and since the investigation is midway, the interim bail may not be extended.

¶28

12.The respective learned counsel appearing for the intervenors would also submit that the petitioner is misusing the liberty granted by view of interim bail and has not chosen to furnish any particular relating to the property and when this matter is listed today, he has furnished the details of three items of properties and though there was a direction by this Court that he should furnish the particulars before 12.11.2013 and inspite of the matter being adjourned and interim order being extended, he has not chosen to furnish the particulars and only for the purpose of extending interim bail, today he has furnished the particulars and strongly oppose this application.

¶29

13.This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials placed before it.

¶30

14.The fact remains that the first accused along with two others have floated a financial consultancy firm in the name and style of 'Sun Financial Consultancy', by announcing various schemes, collected huge amount gullible from the public and the investigation so far revealed that they have collected amount to the tune of Rs.1.22 Crores. This Court, while granting interim bail on 21.10.2013, has taken into consideration the undertaking given by the petitioner/A1 that he will take all sincere efforts to settle the dues and also furnish the details of asset purchased by him. The said interim order dated 21.10.2013 was extended number of times https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and today, when the matter is listed, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has furnished three documents pertaining to three

¶31

properties purchased by the petitioner/A1. Though it is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/A1 that it is for the investigating agency to secure the particulars of documents as well as the other details so as to enable them to go for the attachment of the property, the fact remains, the extent of property and movables purchased by him and the deposits made in the name of Benamies/other persons are within the exclusive knowledge of the petitioner and other accused, in the considered opinion of the Court, the petitioner/A1 has not taken any sincere steps for settlement of dues.

¶32

15.In the light of the reasons assigned above, it is not a fit case for granting bail to the petitioner/A1. Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed.

¶33

06/12/2013

¶34

/ TRUE COPY /

¶35

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

¶36

TO 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, MADURAI

¶37

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

¶38

3.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ECONOMICAL WING, MADURAI, CITY POLICE STATION, MADURAI DIST.

¶39

+1. CC to M/S.P.AJU TAGORE Advocate SR.No.60946

¶40

rg.10.12.2013 4p/5c.

¶41

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

J.Yakya Narayanan v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J.Yakya Narayanan v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chellakali Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

A.G.Sakthi Vs the Inspector of Police

Ravi Vs the Inspector of Police

Duraipandi Vs the Deputy Superintendent of

Vs

Sudharsanam Vs the Inspector of Police