A Y NASSER Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed under Section 438, Cr. P.C. for the release of the petitioner on bail, in the event of his arrest in R.C. No. 19 of 1987 on the file of C.B.I.-S.C.B., Madras, in the interests of justice.

(2.) The averments in the petition, seeking bail, in the event of arrest, are as follows : The petitioner, A. Y. Nasser, is the son of late A. R. Ahmed Yaseen who was a reputed businessman at Madras and was the Chairman and the Managing Director of about five private limited Companies. After the death of A. M. Ahmed Yaseen on 4-7-1987. The petitioner succeeded him as the Chairman and the Managing Director of all the Companies. Till the death of his father, the petitioner was taking part only in the activities of Jet Wings Travels (I) Ltd., and not in the other Companies. According to the petitioner, in the last week of December, 1989, while he was in Hongkong in connection with his business activities, he was informed by the family members that the D.S.P. of CBI, had searched his residential and office premises in connection with the investigation in R. C. No.19 of 1987. The petition states that R.C. No. 19 of 1987 relates to seizure of alleged fake special bearer bonds, in a suit case which had arrived at Madras from Singapore on 9-5-1985. The crime has been registered against (1) Sashikumar (2) Elangovan and (3) Philips Selvester Elangovan is stated to be an employee of M / s. Orient Travels, Madras, with which the petitioner has nothing to do. However, Philips Selvester is an employee of Jet Wings Travels (I) Ltd., Philips Selvester was arrested in 1985 by the Customs Officials and after preliminary investigation, the case was transferred, to the C.B.I. The C.B.I. arrested Philips Selvester in or about April, 1989 and released him on 14-4-1989. After a short lull, Philips Selvester was again summoned to the Office of the C.B.I. and thoroughly interrogated. He and Elangovan were threatened. The petitioner, therefore, apprehends arrest in the guise of interrogation.

(3.) Mr. K. A. Panchapagesan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner had nothing to do with the suit case intercepted by the Customs authorities on 9-5-1985, since the petitioner is neither the consigner nor the consignee. The consignee appear to be one Sashi Kumar, who is shown as accused No. 1 in R.C. No.19 of 1987. The respondent has searched his residential premises and office without any basis. If the petitioner is allowed to be arrested, he would be put to great shame and his reputation in the business circle, would be seriously affected.