Allowed

V.Rajapandi v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC17 Oct 2014CRL OP(MD)/14589/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single bench order granting bail to an accused arrested for economic offences involving public deposit returns. Court noted the petitioner's intent to settle dues filed pending justice and approved release on personal bond with sureties.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on executive bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties for like sums, appearing daily before Principal District Judge, Dindigul to settle claims.

V.Rajapandi Vs the Inspector of Police — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

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

¶2

Friday, the Seventeenth day of October Two Thousand Fourteen

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

The Hon`ble Mr Justice G.CHOCKALINGAM

¶5

CRL OP(MD) No.14589 of 2014

¶6

V.RAJAPANDI ... PETITIONER/ ACCUSED No.2

¶7

¶8

1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ECONOMIC OFFENCE WING - II, DINDIGUL.

¶9

2 THE SECRETARY TAMIL NADU LEGAL AID AUTHORITY, DINDIGUL COURT CAMPUS, DINDIGUL. SUO-MOTU IMPLEADED BY ORDER IN CRL OPMD.14589 OF 14 DT. 13.08.2014 ... RESPONDENT(S) / COMPLAINANT(S)

¶10

For Petitioner : M/S.K.P.S.PALANIVEL RAJAN Advocate

¶11

For Respondent : Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side)

¶12

For Intevenor : M/S.K.VINAYAGAM Advocate

¶13

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

¶14

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶15

The petitioner, who is arrayed as A2, in Crime No.1 of 2014 on the file of the respondent police, was arrested on 21.07.2014 and remanded to judicial custody for the alleged offences punishable under sections 120 (B), 406, 420 of IPC and section 5 of TNPID Act and hence, seeks bail.

¶16

2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with the other accused have collected deposits from the public to the tune of Rs.7.03 croes, but failed to return after maturity.

¶17

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is doing poultry business duly registered under the Companies Act in the name and style of Jeevan Emu Care Private Limited and entered into buy back agreement with the third parties/farmers by supplying Emu Chicks, after receiving money from the farmers and there is no intention to cheat the framers or any third parties by the company and other persons and the petitioner is ready to settle the dues of the farmers and other persons.

¶18

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4.The learned counsel further submitted that in order to protect the interest of the farmers, the petitioner had submitted an application before the Legal Services Authority, Dindigul, on 18.06.2013 giving

¶19

details of the assets and liabilities along with the deposits and requested to dispose of the property in order to repay the same to the depositors amicably. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this court by way of filing W.P.(MD)No.13632 of 2013 and in that writ petition, by order, dated 10.01.2014, this court had directed the Legal Services Authority, Dindigul, to conduct an enquiry and pass appropriate orders within a period of 12 weeks. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this court for extension of time to settle the dues to the farmers amicably and extensions were granted upto 15.07.2014 and thereafter, when the petitioner was filed an application seeking for further extension on 15.07.2014, the respondent police arrested the petitioner on 21.07.2014.

¶20

5.The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner had settled the dues for more than 160 persons through the Legal Aid and some more farmers are yet to be settled. In the meanwhile, this court granted further extension till 30.09.2014 to enable the petitioner to make the settlement with the farmers through the Legal Service Authority, Dindigul. He further submitted that since the petitioner in judicial custody since 21.07.2014, he is not able to settle the dispute amicably. He further contended that the petitioner is entitled for bail as per section 167(2) of Cr.P.C.

¶21

6.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondent submitted that the petitioner along with the other accused have collected money, but failed to return the deposits, after maturity and in this case, A1 and A2 were arrested and they have been incarceration and the others were absconding and if the petitioner is released on bail, he will definitely tamper the witness and hamper the investigation.

¶22

7.In this case, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in jail since 21.07.2014 and if the petitioner is released on bail, he is ready to settle the counterparts.

¶23

8.Section 167(2) reads as follows:-

¶24

167.Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours.-(1)....... (2)...... Provided that-

¶25

(a)the Magistrate may authorise the detention of the accused person, otherwise than in the custody of the police, beyond the period of fifteen days, if he is satisfied that adequate grounds exist for doing so, but no Magistrate shall authorise the detention of the accused person in custody under this paragraph for a total period exceeding,-

¶26

(i) ninety days, where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years;

¶27

(ii).......

¶28

9.In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the period of incarceration by the petitioner and the petitioner is ready to settle the dispute amicably, this court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

¶29

10.Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Special Judge for TNPID Cases, Madurai and on further condition that the

¶30

petitioner shall appear before the learned Principal District Judge, Dindigul daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders so as to make arrangements to settle the claim.

¶31

/ TRUE COPY /

¶32

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.)

¶33

¶34

1 THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TNPID CASES, MADURAI.

¶35

2 THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, DINDIGUL.

¶36

3 THE SECRETARY TAMIL NADU LEGAL AID AUTHORITY, DINDIGUL

¶37

COURT CAMPUS, DINDIGUL.

¶38

4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI

¶39

5 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ECONOMIC OFFENCE WING - II, DINDIGUL.

¶40

6 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL PRISON, MADURAI.

¶41

+1. CC to M/S.K.P.S.PALANIVEL RAJAN Advocate SR.No.57445.

¶42

TS/ 20.10.2014/2P-8C

¶43

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

V.Rajapandi v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Rajapandi 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

J.Soman @ Somasundaram Vs the Inspector of Police

Murugan Vs the Inspector of Police

A.Karnan Vs the Inspector of Police

Arumugam Vs the Inspector of Police

Abin Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

S.Annamalai @ Jeevarathinam Vs the Inspector of Police