M. Pandi Revathi vs. The State Through Si Of Police

Facts

The petitioner, M. Pandi Revathi, arrayed as the 4th accused, sought anticipatory bail in Crime No. 1061 of 2018, registered for offences under Sections 406, 420, 294(b), and 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that the defacto complainant, a wholesale sugar dealer, supplied sugar worth Rs. 25,92,400/- to the petitioner, who acted as a mediator. The petitioner allegedly ordered 600 quintals on October 5, 2018, and 420 quintals on October 8, 2018. When payment was demanded, the petitioner evaded, and it was discovered that the GST numbers provided by the accused were fake. The petitioner claimed to be a mere mediator, while the intervenor and prosecution alleged her to be the mastermind and recipient of a substantial brokerage amount.

Held

The Court dismissed the petition for anticipatory bail. The Court considered the serious nature of the allegations in the First Information Report, noting that the petitioner acted as a mediator for the entire transaction and received a brokerage of Rs. 7,81,000/-. The Court also took into account that several cases were pending against the petitioner and that custodial interrogation was deemed essential for the repayment of the amount and sugar. Based on these factors, the Court concluded that the case was not fit for granting anticipatory bail.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. given the allegations of cheating and the use of fake GST numbers? The petitioner argued that she acted solely as a mediator and had no direct role in the alleged fraudulent transactions, noting that the individuals who received the sugar had been arrested. The prosecution contended that the petitioner was the "brain behind the entire criminal acts," shared equal responsibility with other accused, provided fake GST numbers, and had been paid Rs. 7,81,000/- as "loot." The prosecution also highlighted that the petitioner was involved in similar offenses and that custodial interrogation was essential for the recovery of the amount and sugar. The intervenor supported the prosecution's stance, emphasizing the petitioner's central role in the alleged cheating.