K.Manoharan vs. The Inspector Of Police

Facts

The petitioner, K. Manoharan, an engineering graduate, sought anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 485/2020 registered by the respondent police. The FIR was based on a complaint by the Tahsildar, Tirupathur, alleging that the petitioner, under the guise of cutting two parched Neem trees from the Thirupathur Panchayat Union Office premises, had removed ten other trees. The petitioner had participated in a tender process and was awarded the contract for cutting and removing two parched Neem trees for Rs. 47,400, which included GST. He contended that the complaint was politically motivated and that he had not removed the other trees. The prosecution stated that the petitioner took advantage of the tender for two trees and removed ten others, valued at Rs. 1,60,000.

Held

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner. While initially not inclined to grant anticipatory bail, the Court considered the petitioner's bona fide, evidenced by his willingness to deposit Rs. 1,00,000 to the credit of the case. The Court also took into account that the petitioner is an engineering graduate and had paid the tender amount of Rs. 47,400. The reasoning for granting bail was based on these factors, aiming to ensure the petitioner's cooperation with the investigation and trial while acknowledging the seriousness of the allegations. The operative directions included the petitioner executing a bond for Rs. 10,000 with two sureties, depositing Rs. 1,00,000, submitting identity proof, reporting to the police daily, not tampering with evidence or witnesses, and cooperating with the investigation and trial. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

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 removing more trees than permitted under the tender contract. The petitioner argued that he was awarded a valid tender for cutting and removing two parched Neem trees after participating in a public auction and paying the tender amount of Rs. 47,400, including GST. He claimed the complaint was a result of political vendetta and that he did not remove the other trees. The revenue, represented by the Government Advocate, contended that the petitioner, despite a tender condition to remove only two parched Neem trees, had exploited the situation to remove ten other trees, causing a loss of Rs. 1,60,000.