I.P.Yesudoss And Others vs State

K.Rajasekar, J

The petitioners herein apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 120(b) of Indian Penal Code, in Crime No.79 of 2015, on the file of the respondent Police, seek anticipatory bail.

The allegation against the petitioners is that they are in the habit of collecting money from various gullible members of the public on the false promise of providing loans. The petitioners are alleged to have cheated the de-facto complainant to the tune of Rs.1,22,000/- and further complaint filed stating that the total number of victims is 3,042 and the total amount cheated is Rs.2,00,26,473/-. In this connection, 12 FIRs have been registered by the CCB and EOW. Hence, the complaint was registered against the petitioners.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the respondent police have already attached various properties to the extent of Rs.2,00,26,473/-. He further submitted that no other property is available with them. He also submitted that the petitioners are willing to file an affidavit stating that they have no objection to the sale of the attached properties for the purpose of recovering the amount. He further submitted that the petitioners are ready to cooperate with the investigation and prayed for the grant of anticipatory bail.

He also stated that the petitioners were already arrested in Crime No. 132 of 2012 on the file of the Patteswaram Police Station and in Crime No. 7 of 2015 on the file of EOW, and bail was granted in those cases. Though an FIR has been registered against the petitioners in the present case, the respondent has not come forward to arrest them. The petitioners have also filed an affidavit stating that they have no objection to the sale of the properties attached to them vide G.O.(Ms) No. 132, Home (Police XIX) Department, dated 09.02.2016, and G.O.(Ms) No. 313, Home (Police XIX) Department, dated 19.04.2017. Hence, they pray for the grant of anticipatory bail.

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the petitioners have cheated a huge amount of approximately Rs.,35 crores by making false representations. It is stated that only valuable properties have been attached, and he opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

Heard the learned counsels on either side and perused the materials available on record.

Admittedly, the petitioners were arrested in connection with another case, and the respondent has not chosen to arrest them in the present case. Further, in this case, the petitioners have filed an affidavit stating that they will not raise any objection to the sale of the attached properties.

Considering the above facts and the affidavit filed by the petitioners, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to certain conditions.

Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Egmore, Chennai, 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 learned Magistrate concerned, and on further condition that:

[a] if the petitioners fails to surrender before the concerned Magistrate within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, this order shall stand automatically cancelled;

[b] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the Application for Surety ship [Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019']. The learned Magistrate shall obtain a copy of any one of the identity proofs to ensure their identity;

[c] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30.a.m., for a period of three weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation;

[d] On breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to pass appropriate orders against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the aforementioned conditions have been imposed and the petitioners released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)13 SCC 283];

[e] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S.