S. AROCKIA SAMY & ANR. vs STATE

This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail, to direct the respondent-

police to release the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 on bail in the event of their arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 r/w 34

of IPC registered in respondent police station Crime No.494/2014.

Brief facts of the prosecution case as per the complaint averments is one Mr.S.Senthil Kumar lodged a complaint alleging that he is working as a

Manager in M/s Best Exports, M/s Best Properties, which consists of three partners i.e, 1st petitioner herein, Mr.John Britto and one Mrs. Amitha

A Thaker. The object of the said firm is to purchase properties out of the funds transferred by John Britto. It was agreed that properties purchased

shall be in the name of the partnership firm from November 2005 to October 2007. John Britto had transferred a sum of Rs.7,57,02,000/- to the

account of M/s Best Properties. Out of the funds received, the 1st petitioner instead of purchasing the properties in the name of the firm, purchased

the properties in his own name and in the name of 2nd petitioner and others. As such, he has cheated the firm. The accused persons with an

intention of cheating and to deceive John Britto have purchased the properties in their own names and have acted against the interest of firm. The

petitioners and others started disposing of the properties to third persons in order to enrich themselves. As such they have caused loss to the firm

by violating the terms and conditions of the firm. The petitioners have cheated John Britto a sum of Rs.4,13,00,000/-. On the basis of the said

complaint, a case came to be registered for the alleged offences.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 and also the learned High Court Government

Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

Learned counsel for the petitioners made a submission that looking to the prosecution material, no such offences have been committed by the

petitioners herein. Hence, he submitted that by imposing reasonable conditions, they may be granted with anticipatory bail.

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader, made a submission that in the complaint, it is stated that out of the total amount of

Rs.7,57,02,000/- only Rs.3,44,02,000/- has been returned and still 4,13,00,000/- has to be paid by the petitioners. Hence, he submitted that

matter requires detailed enquiry and hence, petitioners are not entitled to be granted with anticipatory bail.

I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record.

Looking into the averments, there are allegations made as against the petitioner/accused No.1, but so far as the petitioner/accused No.2 is

concerned, she is wife of petitioner/accused No.1 and the allegation is that out of the misappropriation amount, the petitioner/accused No.1 has

purchased some properties in the name of his wife - petitioner/accused No.2 also. Looking into the material at this stage, I am of the opinion that

so far as petitioner/accused No.1 is concerned, it is not a case for grant of anticipatory bail. Hence, petition is rejected as against

petitioner/accused No.1, but petition in respect of petitioner/accused No.2, who is the wife of petitioner/accused No.1, is allowed. The

respondent- Police is directed to enlarge the petitioner/accused No.2 on bail in the event of her arrest for the alleged offence punishable under

Sections 406, 420 r/w 34 of IPC registered in respondent police station Crime No.494/2014, subject to the following conditions:

i. Petitioner/accused No.2 has to execute a personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) and has to furnish one surety for the likesum

to the satisfaction of the arresting authority.

ii. Petitioner/accused No.2 shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.

iii. Petitioner/accused No.2 has to make herself available before the Investigating Officer for interrogation, as and when called for and to cooperate

with the further investigation.

iv. The petitioner/accused No.2 has to appear before the concerned Court within 30 days from the date of this order and to execute the personal

bond and the surety bond.