1

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE, SALEM

Present : Thiru.S.Kumaraguru, B.L.,

Principal Sessions Judge, Salem

Friday, the 5 th day of June, 2020

CMP. No.1569/2020 in Cr. No.8/2020 of CCB, Salem City.

( Judicial Magistrate No.3, Salem.)

Dharman @ Gurudharman (60),

S/o Angamuthu. ... Petitioner/ Accused.

/ Versus /

State: The Inspector of Police,

CCB, Salem City. .. Respondent/Complainant.

Due to Nationwide lock down and as a result of prohibitory order U/s 144 of Cr.P.C.,
has been promulgated by the Government of Tamilnadu since 25.03.2020 till 30.06.2020
and in turn regular work of the Subordinate Judiciary has also been suspended by the
Hon'ble High Court of Madras, whereas exception have been granted to attend urgent
works like bail through video call depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case
and also the nature of emergency, accordingly the petitioner/accused has filed this bail
petition U/s 439 r/w 167(2) of Cr.P.C., on 20.05.2020 along with written arguments by
Online for extremely emergency through E mail Id of the Court Manager of the District
Court, Salem seeking to enlarge him on bail. The said petition was taken on file as
CMP.No.1569/2020. Subsequently, the counsel for the petitioner has filed memo dated :
02-06-2020 stating that the petitioner has not pressing the Clause filed u/Sec.167(2) of
Cr.P.C. and requested to consider the bail application on merit and the memo was
recorded. Hence, this court has treated the bail application filed by the petitioner
u/Sec.439 Cr.P.C. and heard the arguments.

This petition coming on this day for hearing before me, upon hearing the
arguments of Thiru.A.S.Anbu, Advocate for the petitioner through whatsapp video call and
also perused the written argument filed by him and also heard the Public Prosecutor for
the respondent through video call and passed the following
 2

ORDER

Heard. The petitioner is the accused in Cr. No.8/2020 of CCB, Salem City. The
petitioner, who was remanded to judicial custody on 19.03.2020 for the alleged offences
U/s 420 and 506(i) IPC, the petitioner has filed this petition by Online seeking to release
him on bail.

The case of the prosecution is that A-1 is the owner of Sri Mahalakshmi Jewellers,
Salem and A-2 is wife of A-1. The defacto complainant is friend of A-1. During such
relationship A-1 has given false promise to the defacto complainant to give huge amount
and received an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- initially and subsequently on various dates. The
defacto complainant has given various amounts (upto 1 crore) to A-1 for getting more
amount. Due to such instigation of A-1 and A-2, the defacto complainant trusted that he
will get huge amount from A-1. Subsequently, as per the promise of A-1, he did not
made repayment of the amount to the defacto complainant during that period. Hence, the
defacto complainant went to Sri Mahalakshmi Jewellers, Salem and demanded return of
the amount and A-1 and A-2 was not repaid the amount and along with the other accused
the petitioner herein, A-4 and A-5 threatening the defacto complainant. Hence, the case.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended through whatsapp video call
and by written argument by stating that the petitioner is in no way connected with the
offence. He would further argued that as per FIR contents, this petitioner is not received
any amount directly, only he is friend of A-1 and A-2 and the police registered the case
against the petitioner. Further, he has argued that the petitioner is not involved in any
such type of offence, he did not receive any amount from any one of the person. Further,
he has contended that the petitioner has not given any false promise to the beneficiaries to
increase and pay the amount to the defacto complainant and other person. There is no
direct involvement available between the petitioner and the defacto complainant. The
petitioner is only friend of A-1 and A-2. Due to such reason the police has falsely
implicated him in the case. The petitioner is more than 79 days in judicial custody. The
material part of the witnesses have already been examined by the police. Further, the
confession statement is also recorded from this petitioner. He would further submit that
the transactions are happened through documents. Therefore, when the documentary
evidence is available, there is no necessity for judicial custody of the petitioner. If the
 3

petitioner is released on bail it is not possible for him to hamper the investigation and
tamper the witnesses because of the transactions are happened through documentary
evidence. In this circumstances, he prayed to grant bail to the petitioner.

On the other hand the learned Public Prosecutor has objected to release the
petitioner on bail stating that the petitioner is close friend of A-1 and A-2. After receipt of
the amount, A-1 and A-2 have handed over the amount to A-3 this petitioner herein.
Therefore, the involvement of the petitioner A-3 is also involved in the crime. Further, the
investigation is in very initial stage. The documents are not received from the bank in
respect of the Bank transaction particulars of A-1 and A-2 and also this petitioner. The
same is yet to be received by the respondent police. After receipt of the documents only,
the witnesses are able to be examined by the police regarding this petitioner. In the
meantime, the State was affected by COVID-19. Due to such reason the entire
establishment is under lock-down. Under this circumstances, the respondent is not able to
proceed the case. Further, the learned Public Prosecutor has contended that if the
petitioner is released on bail there is a chance of hamper the investigation and tamper the
witnesses. This petitioner is a well to do person. Further, he has contended that the co-
accused A-1, A-4 and A-5 are yet to be arrested by the police. This petitioner's
incarceration is very necessary to strengthen the prosecution case. In this circumstance, if
the petition is allowed prejudice will be caused to the prosecution. Hence, petition is to be
dismissed.

On perusal of the petition, initially the petitioner has filed petition u/Sec.167(2) r/w
439 Cr.P.C. Subsequently, the petitioner is not pressing Sec.167(2) Cr.P.C. and only
constrained his argument in respect of Sec.439 of Cr.P.C. on merits. In this regard, the
learned counsel for the petitioner has filed memo through on-line and memo was received
and recorded.

C.D. file was produced and perused. After taking into consideration of both side
learned counsels arguments and on perusal of C.D. file, in the present case totally 5
accused are involved in the crime. A-1, A-4 and A-5 are absconding and yet to be arrested
by the police. On perusal of the C.D. file, it reveals that the Inspector of Police has
arrested A-3 the petitioner herein and recorded the confession statement from him.
Further, on perusal of case records, it found that subsequently the Investigation Officer has
 4

addressed to the Nodal Officer and Bank Officer to collect the Bank transactions of A-1, A-
2 and this petitioner. The transaction is in progress. The involvement of the amount in
this case is very huge. Further, at the time of occurrence this petitioner is present in
occurrence place. Further, records reveals that the petitioner is also involved in the crime.

The petitioner is close friend of A-1 and A-2. Apart from that he is also a well known
person among people having influence. Further, the Inspector of Police has addressed to
the bank authorities for collecting the transaction details of A-1 and A-2. The bank
authorities have not furnished records relating to A-1, A-2 and this petitioner(A-3). This
court opinion is that case was registered by the police based on the documents At the
same time, investigation is yet to be completed. Further, A-1, A-4 and A-5 are yet to be
arrested by the Police. This court opinion is that the amount involved in this crime is very
huge. Even the petitioner is in incarceration for 79 days, since investigation is yet to be
completed, if the petitioner is released on bail it is possible for hamper the investigation
and tamper the witnesses. The prosecution proceedings will be affected. The above said
all aspects are considered by this court and come to the conclusion that the petitioner is
not entitled for bail. Petition is dismissed.

Pronounced by me, this the 5th day of June, 2020.

sd/-S.Kumaraguru,
Principal Sessions Judge,
Salem.

Copy to the petitioner through his counsel Thiru.A.S.Anbu.