Sastha vs. The Inspector Of Police
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioners, Sastha and Sudhakar, sought anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 294 of 2022 registered by the Inspector of Police, Thirumangalam Town, Madurai District. The prosecution alleged that the petitioners, who were employees of Agasthiya Polymers, managed the company during the COVID-19 pandemic. They are accused of replacing a new machine worth Rs. 12 lakhs with an old one and selling some old machinery for Rs. 8,00,000/-. The petitioners claimed they were relatives of the defacto complainant, started the company, and were listed as proprietors in the GST registration certificate. They stated they had appeared before the police and produced documents, denying any offense. The prosecution contended that the petitioners were employees who cheated the company of Rs. 20,00,000/- and that custodial interrogation was necessary as the investigation was ongoing.
Held
The Court dismissed the petition for anticipatory bail. The primary issue was whether the petitioners were entitled to anticipatory bail. The Court considered the arguments presented by both sides. The petitioners claimed they were proprietors and relatives, had cooperated with the investigation, and denied committing any offense. Conversely, the State argued that the petitioners were employees who had committed a significant financial fraud, and that their custodial interrogation was crucial for the ongoing investigation. The Court, after considering the nature and gravity of the offense, the substantial amount involved (Rs. 20,00,000/-), and the necessity for custodial interrogation as stated by the prosecution, was not inclined to grant anticipatory bail. Therefore, the petition was dismissed.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with the alleged offences under Section 381 of the IPC? The petitioners argued that they are relatives of the defacto complainant, were instrumental in starting Agasthiya Polymers, and are listed as proprietors in the GST registration. They claimed to have cooperated with the investigation and produced all available documents, asserting they committed no offense. They expressed willingness to abide by any conditions imposed by the court. The State, represented by the Government Advocate, contended that the petitioners were employees who had cheated the company of a substantial sum. They further argued that the investigation was incomplete and custodial interrogation of the petitioners was essential, strongly opposing the grant of anticipatory bail.
Sections Cited
Section 438, Section 381
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Section 381 of IPC, in Crime No.294 of 2022, seek anticipatory bail.
The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is running a company namely Agasthiya Polymers. The accused were working in the said company. Due to corona pandemic, the defacto complainant instructed the accused to manage the company. In this circumstances, the accused changed new machine, which is worth about Rs.12 lakhs and replaced with old machine and sold some of the old machine, which is worth about Rs.8,00,000/-. Hence, the complaint. 1/2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP(MD). No.15459 of 2022
The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners and the defacto complainant are relatives. He would further submit that that the company called Agasthiya Polimers has been started by these petitioners and they have been shown as Proprietors in GST Registration certificate. He would further submit that the petitioners have appeared before the respondent police and produced all the documents available to them and they did not commit any offence as alleged by the prosecution and the petitioners shall abide any condition imposed by this Court and they may be granted anticipatory bail. 4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that the petitioners are employee of the defacto complainant's company and they cheated a sum of Rs.20,00,000/-. He would further submit that the investigation in this case is not yet completed and the custodial interrogation of the petitioners are very much necessary. Hence, he strongly opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 5.Considering the nature and gravity of the offence and considering the huge amount involved in this case and also the facts that the investigation in this case is not yet completed and the custodial interrogation of the petitioners are very much necessary as stated by the learned Government Advocate(crl.side), this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 6.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 12/10/2022 // /10/2022 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE THIRUMANGALAM TOWN, MADURAI DISTRICT 2 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.15459 of 2022 Date :12/10/2022 SS/BUC/SAR-II (26/10/2022) 2P/3C 2/2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Reproduced from the public record of the Madras High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.