RADHAKRISHNAN ALIAS R K Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who is accused of having committed an offence punishable under Section 420, IPC read with Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 and under Section 15 of Indian Medical Council Act read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954 as per the case registered by the respondent in their Crime No. 42/03, has come forward to file the above Criminal Original petition seeking Anticipatory Bail on grounds such as that on 24-1-2003 a complaint was lodged by an individual viz. Jayaraman of Ayanavaram, Chennai stating that he has been cheated to the tune of Rs. 5990/- in the name of a scheme floated by the petitioner and others under pretext and guise of selling Magnetic Cot and other articles by canvassing and enlisting third parties in the name of becoming pilferage under the banner of Multi Level marketing and he has been cheated of the said money without complying with the promise made, based on which the respondent police have registered the case.

(2.) The petitioner would submit that initially he was granted anticipatory bail by the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai in its Crl. M.P. No. 880 of 2003 dated 29-1-2003 and the respondent police moved an application for cancellation of the Anticipatory Bail before the High Court and this Court ultimately passed orders setting aside the Anticipatory Bail granted by the Court of Sessions and another petition filed by the petitioner herein in Crl. M.P. No. 7108 of 2003 for the same relief was dismissed on 17-3-2003. Yet another application for the same relief filed in Crl. O.P. No. 9750 of 2003 has been dismissed as withdrawn on 10-4-2003 and now the petitioner has come forward to file the above Crl. O.P. seeking the relief of Anticipatory bail on grounds such as that the petitioner is innocent; that some similar companies also have indulged in the same marketing business named AMWAY, ORIFLAME, QUANTUM INTERNATIONAL, etc. but the respondent has not initiated any action against them; that the type of business in marketing the product would not attract the penal provisions of either Section 420 or that of the provisions of prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 etc., that the legal experts have given opinions justifying the conduct of business by the petitioner-company nor do the actions of the respondent fall within the parameters fixed by the Hon'ble Apex Court; that the respondent have not submitted the documents or connected records to substantiate their allegations; that the arrest of the petitioner to subject him for custodial interrogation is unnecessary and unwanted in the circumstances of the case; that the petitioner will not tamper the witnesses or hamper the investigation, as it is alleged on the part of the prosecution that the petitioner is willing to repay the entire amount to the complainant and to the satisfaction of each and everyone of the customers; that when the factual and legal aspects are in dispute, it is only appropriate to leave the decision to the trial Court. Under this juncture it is only just and necessary to grant Anticipatory Bail in favour of the petitioner.

(3.) During arguments, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, tracing what has been pleaded in the petition, would feel that the learned Sessions Judge has arrived at a right conclusion in granting Anticipatory Bail in favour of the petitioner and the interference caused by the High Court in setting aside the said order is neither necessary nor warranted in the circumstances of the case and moreover the petitioner has now come forward to file the above Anticipatory Bail Application on changed circumstances in an advanced stage of the investigation, since vital part of investigation should have been completed by this time.