R.B.Nandini vs. The Inspector Of Police

Facts

The petitioners, R.B. Nandini and R.R. Bhaskar, are accused in Crime No. 2 of 2022, registered by the District Crime Branch, Madurai. The prosecution alleges that the first petitioner, acting as a clearing and forwarding agent for HIL Limited (the de-facto complainant), failed to return goods worth approximately Rs. 85,00,000/- after the termination of their agreement. The petitioners, who are registered dealers under GST and involved in stockiest and distribution business, contend that they had business agreements with HIL Limited. The goods were collected even after the agreement dated 24.07.2020 was terminated. The petitioners sought anticipatory bail, expressing willingness to deposit a reasonable amount.

Held

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners. The reasoning was based on the facts and circumstances presented, particularly the petitioners' long-standing business presence and their willingness to deposit a substantial amount. The Court did not delve into the merits of the criminal charges but focused on the conditions for granting anticipatory bail. The petitioners were ordered to execute a bond of Rs. 10,000/- each with two sureties each. Additionally, they were required to deposit original title deeds of immovable property worth Rs. 1,00,00,000/- with a valuation certificate to the credit of the case. They must also report to the police daily for four weeks and thereafter as required, and not tamper with evidence or witnesses, nor abscond. The Court cited the Supreme Court's decision in P.K. Shaji vs. State of Kerala regarding the consequences of breaching bail conditions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR No. 2 of 2022 for alleged offences under Sections 406, 420, 380, and 120(b) of the IPC? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioners argued that they are registered under GST and have a long-standing business history. They claimed to have collected goods worth Rs. 85,00,000/- during their business dealings as clearing and forwarding agents and stockists for HIL Limited, even after the termination of their agreement. They expressed willingness to deposit a reasonable amount to show their bona fides. Revenue/State's Argument: The judgment records the arguments of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent but does not detail specific contentions against the grant of anticipatory bail.