Madhavan vs. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Navalpattu

Facts

The petitioner, Madhavan, sought anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 200 of 2024 registered by the Navalpattu Police Station, Trichy District. The prosecution's case is that the de facto complainant paid GST amounting to Rs. 2,44,553/- to the accused persons, including the petitioner, who allegedly failed to remit it, thereby deceiving the complainant. The petitioner claims to be falsely implicated and innocent. The second respondent, Shapoorji Pallonji and Company Private Limited, was impleaded as a party. The police submitted that the second respondent had paid Rs. 3 lakhs to the de facto complainant, who was willing to sign a 'No Due' certificate.

Held

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, Madhavan, with certain conditions. The decision was influenced by the fact that the second respondent had paid Rs. 3 lakhs to the de facto complainant, and the complainant was willing to issue a 'No Due' certificate. This indicated a resolution or at least a significant step towards resolving the financial dispute that formed the basis of the criminal complaint. The Court reasoned that with the financial aspect being addressed, the need for custodial interrogation might be reduced, making anticipatory bail appropriate. The conditions imposed included executing a bond, furnishing sureties, appearing when required, not tampering with evidence or witnesses, and not absconding. The Court also referenced the Supreme Court's decision in P.K. Shaji vs. State of Kerala regarding the imposition of bail conditions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, considering the allegations of cheating and criminal breach of trust related to GST remittance? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner contended that he has been falsely implicated and has not committed any offense, thus seeking anticipatory bail. Revenue/State's Argument: The respondent police submitted that the second respondent had paid Rs. 3 lakhs to the de facto complainant, and the complainant was willing to provide a 'No Due' certificate. This implicitly suggests that the resolution of the financial dispute might influence the grant of bail.