MAYA VENKATESAN Vs. STATE OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Criminal Revision Petitions have been preferred as against the order of the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, saidapet, Chennai, dated 2-7-2007, cancelling the statutory bail granted to the petitioner; and the Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking for the grant of Anticipatory bail in Crime No. 2 of 2007, pending investigation/enquiry for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 120 (b), 406, 420 and 307 read with 27 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959, on the file of the respondent-police.

(2.) FIRSTLY, as regards the Criminal Original Petition, seeking for grant of anticipatory bail, the case of the prosecution is that the petitioner, with his associates, projecting himself as the Managing Director of m/s. Nellai Cements, called for tenders from civil contractors through paper publications and received quotations. He concluded contracts with several contractors receiving huge money as E. M. D. with the promise that work orders would be issued to them. The total money so received runs to several crores. In the present case alone, he is alleged to have received Rs. 20,00,000/- from the complainant, however, he neither issued the work order as promised by him nor returned back the amount received as E. M. D. The amount was given by the complainant on 10-11-2004 and after awaiting for the work orders nearly for one year, when he went to the petitioner demanding either issuance of the work order or repayment of the money, it is alleged that the petitioner threatened him by showing pistol. It is seen that several such complaints have been entertained by the respondent-police, resulting in arrest of the petitioner on 28-7-2006. The present case in Crime No. 2 of 2007 has been taken on file on 23-2-2007. It is also seen that a detention order under the Tamil nadu Act 14 of 1982, branding the petitioner as 'goonda', was clamped on him on 15-8-2006.

(3.) LEARNED Senior Counsel for the petitioner, admitting the acceptance of E. M. D. to the tune of Rs. 20,00,000/- by the petitioner from the complainant, submits that, due to various circumstances, work orders as promised could not be issued; that, on the strength of the complaints given by some other persons, 8 cases have been registered against the petitioner, resulting in his arrest; and that, in all those cases, since the respondent-police could not file final report in time, he was enlarged by the Magistrate on statutory bail. In the meantime, the petitioner filed a Habeas Corpus Petition to quash the order of detention passed against him under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and the said petition was allowed on 5-4-2007. By stating that the petitioner has been enlarged on bail in all the 8 cases registered against him: that the present case has been registered at a later point of time i. e. on 23-2-2007, when he was in judicial custody; and that he is willing to repay the entire amount to the complainant in the present case; learned Senior Counsel submits that the grant of anticipatory bail may be considered positively.