COMMON ORDER

Crl.OP.No.26229 of 2023 This petition has been filed by the petitioner/defacto complainant seeking to cancel the bail granted to the second respondent/A1 by the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Tambaram in Crl.MP.No.1264 of 2023 dated

16.10.2023 made in Cr.No.101 of 2023 on the file of the first respondent police.

The petitioners/A2, A3, A4 and A5 have filed Crl.OP.No.27771 of

2023 in Cr.No.101 of 2023 registered by the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 465, 466, 467, 471 and 420 of IPC seek anticipatory bail.

2. The defacto complainant had filed Crl.MP.No.375 of 2024 seeking permission to intervene and to be heard before passing any orders in Crl.OP.No.27771 of 2023. Additionally, the defacto complainant had also filed Crl.OP.No.26629 of 2023 under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C seeking to cancel the bail granted to A1 in Crl.MP.No.1264 of 2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Tambaram by order dated 16.11.2023 in the very same FIR in Cr.No.101 of 2023.

3. All the accused A1 to A5 had earlier filed Crl.OP.No.19354 of

2023 before this Court seeking anticipatory bail and by an order dated

10.10.2023, the said application was dismissed, wherein it was observed that A1 had been taken into custody and remanded to judicial custody. On that ground, the application seeking anticipatory bail was dismissed for A1, but on appreciation of facts, anticipatory bail was also denied to A2 to A5. It is contended that one change in circumstances from 10.10.2023 is that A1 who had been remanded to custody had been granted bail by the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Tambaram as aforementioned in Crl.MP.No.1264 of

2023 by an order dated 16.10.2023.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners in Crl.OP.No.27771 of

2023, therefore urged that similar relief of grant of anticipatory bail should also be granted to the petitioners herein.

5. Even proceeding further, it would only be appropriate that to a little extent the facts of the case of the prosecution is also stated. A1, who incidentally happens to be the father of A2 and A3 and the uncle of A4 and A5, had joined the defacto complainant's company, G.G.Organics Private Limited as Godown Consultant. The very nature of the post , involves high degree of trust and and also had a duty to ensure that no products are taken away from the Godown to the detriment of his employer/ the defacto complainant and to his personal gain. But, however unfortunately it is alleged that what is happened.

6. It is stated that over a period of time, he had ensured that products like chemicals of the company which had been stocked in the godown had been sold in the black market and it is alleged that he had misappropriated to an extent of Rs.1,77,62,788/-.

7. It is also the case of the prosecution and details in that regard had been forwarded that out of this amount A1, had transferred a sum of Rs.10,19,100/- to the account of his son who now therefore has been arrayed as A2. He had also transferred a sum of Rs.36,01,500/- to the account of his daughter who is arrayed as A3. Not left with son and daughter, he has also transferred a sum of Rs.16,83,000/- to A4 and a sum of Rs.33,86,000/- to A5 who are both his nephews therefore, he had not only involved himself in the offence of ensuring the properties of the defacto complainant are taken away from the godown and sold, but had also transferred the proceeds of unlawful sale of such products to his own daughter, son and two nephews.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioners/A2 to A5 who are son, daughter and nephews pointed out the respective ages of the said individuals and stated that they are young and therefore some consideration should be shown by this Court. If they are young, then when they suddenly over night see inflow of Rs.10,00,000/- or Rs.33,00,000/- to their personal accounts, normal behaviour would be to question the source and from where it came. But very merrily, they had retained that amount in their accounts and al