S.Venkatesh Babu @ Immanuvel vs. The Sub Inspector Of Police

Facts

The petitioner, S. Venkatesh Babu @ Immanuvel, sought anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 40/2023 registered by the Sub Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Theni District. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, along with friends from Sweden, planned to start an Algae manufacturing company in India. The petitioner proposed a business requiring Rs. 15 crores, and his friends invested Rs. 13.59 crores. Subsequently, ALG India Enterprises Private Limited was formed, with the defacto complainant holding shares. The petitioner purchased land and machinery for the company, but allegedly utilized company funds for personal use, refused to hand over company documents, and withheld passwords necessary for GST payments, leading to charges of cheating and misappropriation.

Held

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The Court observed that the First Information Report indicated business transactions between the petitioner and the defacto complainant, and that the land and machinery were purchased for ALG India Enterprises Private Limited. It was noted that the alleged offenses did not constitute heinous crimes. Relying on Supreme Court precedents in Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia Etc. vs. State of Punjab, Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, and Joginder Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others, the Court found the case to be purely a matter of business transactions. Consequently, the petitioner was ordered to be released on bail upon arrest or appearance within fifteen days, subject to executing a bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties, and adhering to further conditions including reporting to the court, not tampering with evidence or witnesses, and not absconding.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, given the allegations of cheating and misappropriation of company funds? The petitioner argued that he is innocent and has not committed any offense. He contended that the land and machinery were purchased for ALG India Enterprises Private Limited and that no company funds were used for personal benefit. He prayed for anticipatory bail. The respondent police, through the learned Government Advocate, opposed the grant of anticipatory bail, asserting that the petitioner had used company funds for personal usage. The intervenor/defacto complainant's counsel also strongly objected to anticipatory bail, reiterating the allegations of personal use of company funds and intent to cheat and misappropriate.