LAWS(SC)-2019-5-91

GATI LIMITED Vs. T NAGARAJAN PIRAMIAJEE

Decided On May 06, 2019
GATI LIMITED Appellant
V/S
T NAGARAJAN PIRAMIAJEE And ANR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) This appeal is filed questioning the order dated 25.07.2018 passed by the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court in Crl. O.P. (MD) No. 9348 of 2018 granting anticipatory bail in favour of Respondent No.1.

(3.) Respondent No.1 is the accused (hereinafter "the accused") in Crime No. 364 of 2017 registered at SIPCOT Police Station, District Thoothukudi, Tamil Nadu for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 472 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "the IPC"). The allegations against the accused as found in the First Information Report (FIR) are that he had furnished two forged Bank Guarantees each amounting to Rs.5,00,00,000.00 (Rupees Five Crores) to the Appellant in lieu of the services of the Appellant. Initially, the FIR was registered for milder offences. However, the High Court passed an order directing the police to alter the offences suitably, and accordingly, the FIR was altered by adding Sections 467, 468 and 472 of the IPC. The accused was absconding during that time. The High Court directed the police to arrest him and report to the Court by 22.12.2017. Despite the same, the accused was not arrested. Ultimately, on 02.01.2018, he filed an application for anticipatory bail before the High Court as Crl. O.P. (MD) No. 288 of 2017 in the first instance. The application came to be dismissed by the High Court on 09.04.2018. Prior to the disposal of the said application by the High Court, the accused had approached this Court in SLP (Crl.) Diary No. 7830 of 2018 questioning the order of the High Court directing alteration of sections in the FIR, and the same had been dismissed by this Court with the specific direction that the accused was at liberty to surrender before the Trial Court and to obtain regular bail. Despite the said order of this Court, the accused subsequently pressed his anticipatory bail application before the High Court filed as Crl. O.P. (MD) No. 288 of 2017 which, as mentioned supra, came to be dismissed by the High Court. The said order of the rejection of the application for anticipatory bail by the High Court was confirmed by this Court in SLP (Crl.) Diary No. 15986 of 2018 on 17.05.2018. Thereafter, after a lapse of merely 13 days, i.e. on 31.05.2018, the accused filed a second application for anticipatory bail bearing Crl. O.P. (MD) No. 9348 of 2018 before the High Court, that too without any change in circumstance. The High Court by the impugned order granted anticipatory bail to the accused.