M. Pandi Revathi vs. The Sub Inspector Of Police

Facts

The petitioner, M. Pandi Ravathi (A4), sought anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 1061/2018 registered under Sections 406, 420, 294(b), and 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner introduced other accused (A1 to A3) to the de-facto complainant, a wholesale sugar merchant. The de-facto complainant supplied sugar bags worth approximately Rs. 25,92,400/- to A1 to A3, who failed to make the payment. It was subsequently discovered that the accused had purchased the sugar bags using a bogus GST number. The petitioner contended that she acted merely as a broker and that it was the complainant's duty to verify the GST number and the credibility of the purchasers. The investigation was pending.

Held

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The reasoning appears to be based on the petitioner's limited role as an alleged broker and the fact that the investigation was still pending. The Court noted the submission that the petitioner was only a broker. While the prosecution's case involved a substantial amount and the use of a bogus GST number, the Court found it inclined to grant anticipatory bail. The ratio decidendi is that in cases where the petitioner's role is that of an introducer or broker and the investigation is ongoing, anticipatory bail may be granted, especially considering the petitioner's gender. The operative direction was to release the petitioner on bail upon her arrest or appearance before the Judicial Magistrate No. II, Dindigul, within fifteen days, subject to furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties, and adhering to several conditions including daily reporting for four weeks, 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 her role as an alleged introducer/broker in a transaction involving the supply of goods worth Rs. 25,92,400/- based on a bogus GST number, and the pending investigation for offences under Sections 406, 420, 294(b), and 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code. Arguments: Petitioner: The petitioner argued that she is a lady and acted solely as a broker, introducing the other accused to the de-facto complainant. She contended that the de-facto complainant had the responsibility to verify the GST number and the credibility of the purchasers, and therefore, the petitioner had not committed any offence as alleged. Respondent (State): The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that the investigation was pending and acknowledged that the petitioner was only the broker.