Sujith Kumar vs. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Vellichanthai

Facts

The petitioner, S. Sujith Kumar, Managing Director of Tekson Motors Private Limited, is seeking anticipatory bail. The prosecution alleges that the petitioner entered into a commercial agreement to sell electric two-wheelers to the defacto complainant, collected Rs. 12,00,000/- for 20 vehicles, but delivered only 11 vehicles worth Rs. 7,54,175/-. It is further alleged that the petitioner wrongfully collected an excess 5% GST of Rs. 91,726/- and refused to return additional vehicles sent for repairs. The petitioner claims innocence and false implication. The respondent police oppose anticipatory bail, stating the investigation is pending and the offences are grave, though the petitioner has no prior cases.

Held

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The Court considered the rival submissions, the nature of the offences, the existence of a dispute in respect of the money transaction, and the fact that the petitioner has no previous cases. It was also noted that the material part of the investigation might have been completed. The petitioner was ordered to be released on bail upon arrest or appearance before the Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel, within fifteen days of the order copy being ready, on executing a bond for Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties. Further conditions include reporting to the police weekly for four weeks, not committing similar offences, not absconding, and not tampering with evidence or witnesses. The Court also noted that if the accused absconds thereafter, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 BNS.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) given the allegations of financial impropriety and non-delivery of goods, and the ongoing investigation. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contends he is innocent, falsely implicated, and has no connection to the alleged incident. He argues that the dispute is essentially a monetary transaction and that the material part of the investigation might have been completed, justifying the grant of anticipatory bail. Respondent's arguments: The respondent (State) argues that the investigation is still pending and the offences are grave in nature. While acknowledging the petitioner has no previous cases, the respondent opposes the grant of anticipatory bail.