M.Maruthupandian vs. The Inspector Of Police

Facts

The petitioner, M. Maruthupandian (Accused No. 3), sought bail in connection with Crime No. 42 of 2022, registered for offences under Sections 419, 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act. The prosecution alleged that on July 3, 2018, the petitioner, along with other accused, defrauded victims by collecting money on the pretext of offering prizes for purchasing household appliances through a raffle scheme, purportedly related to GST Tax and other reasons. The total amount collected from various victims was Rs. 14,28,860/-. The petitioner claimed to be merely a driver and stated that he had not received any amount. He had been in judicial custody since March 7, 2023.

Held

The Court granted bail to the petitioner, M. Maruthupandian (Accused No. 3), considering the submissions made by the learned counsels and the period of his incarceration. The Court found that the petitioner's claim of being an acting driver and not having received any amount warranted consideration for bail. The reasoning for granting bail was primarily based on the petitioner's alleged limited role and the time spent in custody, without delving into the merits of the allegations of fraud. The operative directions included releasing the petitioner on bail upon executing a bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties, reporting to the police daily, and refraining from committing similar offences, tampering with evidence, or absconding. The issue of the petitioner's direct involvement in the alleged fraud and the quantum of money collected was not definitively decided but was weighed against the period of custody for the purpose of granting bail.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, considering the alleged offences and the period of incarceration? The petitioner argued that he was only an acting driver and had not received any funds, implying a limited role in the alleged fraud. He also highlighted the period of his incarceration as a factor for granting bail. The respondent (State) contended that the petitioner was involved in cheating victims by collecting substantial amounts of money (Rs. 14,28,860/-) through a fraudulent scheme involving household appliances and raffle prizes, under the guise of GST Tax and other reasons. The prosecution's case was based on the First Information Report and the materials on record.