Granted bail cancelled on the allegation of non co-operation as alleged by prosecution.

The petition is filed by the investigating officer invoking the provision under section 439

(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to cancel the bail granted to the first accused in a case in C.C.B. X.Crime No.87/2008 registered for offences punishable under sections 403, 406, 420, 466, 468, 471, 474, 477-A 506(1) and 120B of the Indian Penal Code on the file of the Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch Team I, Egmore, Chennai.

2. The allegation in the complaint is that the Company by name Cheran Enterprises Private Limited kept in its account a sum of Rs.78 crores in its bank account in ABN Amro Bank, Chennai. The first accused siphoned off the entire money by diverting the same to the accounts of the other accused. The first accused is supposed to utilise the funds of Cheran Enterprises Private Limited only as per the terms of the agreement dated 30.1.2004. The said agreement postulates that the first accused cannot withdraw more than a sum of Rs.40,00,000/= from the said account without the consent of Mr.Chandran Rathnasami, one of its Directors. The first accused also fabricated documents and records and fraudulently misappropriated the funds of the complainant. The de facto complainant company had been stripped off its entire capital in the form of liquid cash. He had caused wrongful loss to the Company and wrongful enrichment to himself. Therefore, the first accused is guilty of misappropriation of property, criminal breach of trust, forgery, falsification of accounts and other related offences.

3. The first accused moved an application seeking bail before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. He has granted bail to the first accused with the following observations:-

The first accused had already been taken police custody for about three days for interrogation. During interrogation, his specimen signatures and statements were also obtained. Though the first accused was taken into police custody for the purpose of taking him to Coimbatore, Erode and other places to unearth the details of transaction the first accused had with various banks, for reasons best known, the investigating officer had not taken the first accused either to Coimbatore or to Erode or to other places. The amount had been allegedly diverted from the de facto complainant company and deposited in a company by name SPIL. Even in connection with two other cases, the petitioner was subjected to police custody and his specimen signature and statement were already obtained in connection therewith. The first accused had been in custody in connection with yet another case from 31. 2008 and in connection with the present case from 22. 2008. The first accused is an Ex.M.P and Ex.M.L.A. He is a respectable person in the Society. After all, the case is based on the documentary evidence. Hence, the question of tampering the evidence would not arise.

4. Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the State would submit that a serious allegation of misappropriation of a whopping sum of Rs.78 crores has been alleged in this case. The complainant also has come out with fabrication of records and forgery of documents. The first accused never co-operated even during interrogation under police custody. The other accused are at large. The investigating agency is groping in the dark without any co-operation from any of the accused. There is every possibility for the first accused misusing his status he has acquired as Ex.M.P and Ex.M.L.A not only to tamper with the evidence but also to prevail upon the material witnesses in this case. A sum of Rs.78 crores which was diverted from the complainant company could not be traced by the investigating agency. If the first accused is released on bail, there is every possibility for him to completely hide the said amount. He may also abscond from justice as a case of this magnitude has been booked as against him.

5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the de facto compla