S.C.SELVARAJ Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 5th accused has filed Crl.O.P.No.1961 of 2024, the 6th accused has filed Crl.O.P.No.1963 of 2024, the 3rd accused has filed Crl.O.P.No.1965 of 2024 and the 7th and 8th accused have filed Crl.O.P.No.1713 of 2024, all seek bail in Crime No.7 of 2021, registered by the respondent police for the offences under Ss. 409 and 420 of IPC and Sec. 76(1) r/w 4(1) of Chit Fund Act, 1982. Apart from these applications, the 9th accused has filed Crl.O.P.No.1884 of 2024 seeking anticipatory bail in the same crime number for the same offences.

(2.) It is the case of the prosecution that on a complaint with respect to the affairs of 'Ambattur Nadargal Dharma Paripalana Sangam' at Ambattur in Chennai, it was found that the said Sangam had subscribed chits on promises that they would repay the amount to the subscribers on demand. Various customers had deposited amounts to the said Sangam. The total amount so deposited come to nearly Rs.1,99,00,000.00. Originally, it is stated that when one of the accused sought anticipatory bail, a learned Judge of this Court had appointed a former Judge of this Court as Commissioner to collect the monies. There had been a deposit of Rs.50,00,000.00 by A2. Subsequently, A2 had been granted bail by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, by an order dtd. 22/12/2023 in Crl.M.P.No.32901 of 2023. This fact is stressed upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners stating that the petitioners herein should also be considered for grant of bail.

(3.) It is seen that A2 who had been granted bail had deposited a sum of Rs.50,00,000.00, but however had not handed over the title deeds of the property which had been purchased. One aspect which had prevailed upon by my learned predecessor to also include A7, A8 and A9 as respondents and subsequently who had been arrayed as accused is that they were the subsequent office-bearers of the aforementioned Sangam and that they had filed a civil suit in O.S.No.159 of 2020 before the District Munsif at Ambattur seeking injunction from alienating the said property. Coming to the opinion that by obtaining such injunction, the said accused/A7, A8 and A9 have frustrated any possibility of the amount being settled to the defacto complainant and to other complainants, the learned Single Judge of this Court directed that they should also be included as respondents which indirectly implied them to be included as accused.