Munirathinam vs. The Inspector Of Police

Facts

The petitioner, Munirathinam (A2), sought bail in Crime No. 42/2022 registered by the Cyber Crime Police Station, Thoothukudi. The prosecution alleged that on July 3, 2018, the petitioner, along with other accused, defrauded victims by soliciting money on the pretext of GST tax and other reasons, promising prizes for purchasing household appliances. The petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on March 7, 2023. The petitioner claimed to be merely an acting driver and that he only induced the defacto complainant to deposit money in favour of the first accused, who has already been arrested and remanded. The petitioner also noted that a co-accused had been granted bail by the High Court.

Held

The Court granted bail to the petitioner, Munirathinam (A2), in Crime No. 42/2022. The Court considered the submissions made by the learned counsels, the period of incarceration of the petitioner, and the fact that a co-accused in the same case had been granted bail. The Court found it inclined to grant bail. The bail was granted subject to several conditions, including executing a bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties, affixing photographs and thumb impressions on the surety bond, reporting to the respondent police daily for four weeks and thereafter as and when required, not committing similar offences, not absconding, and not tampering with evidence or witnesses. The Court also noted that on breach of any condition, appropriate action could be taken as if the bail was granted by the Magistrate, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in P.K. Shaji vs. State of Kerala. No issues were expressly left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, considering the nature of the alleged offences under Sections 419, 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, and the stage of the investigation. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that he was merely an acting driver and his role was limited to inducing the defacto complainant to deposit money with the first accused. He highlighted that the first accused had already been arrested and remanded. Furthermore, the petitioner pointed out that a co-accused in the same case had been granted bail by this Court, suggesting parity. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent, represented by the Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Police Station, Thoothukudi, did not present any specific arguments against the bail petition in the provided text. The judgment notes that both sides were heard and materials perused.