V. Ramasubramanian ORDER
V. Ramasubramanian, J.
1. This is a petition for anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. Heard Mr. Prakash Goklaney, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. S. Shanmuga Velayutham, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and M/s. Karthik Seshadri and Abudu Kumar Rajarathnam, learned counsel appearing for the intervenors.
3. The petitioner, who is the Managing Director of a company formerly known as M/s. Viswapriya Financial Services and Securities Limited and which is at present known as Viswapriya (India) Limited, is arrayed as the fourth accused in Crime No. 05 of 2013 on the file of Economic Offences Wing II of the Chennai City Police for the alleged offences under Sections 406, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1997. The aforesaid complaint was registered at the instance of one Mr. G. Ramadoss, who claimed that upon being incited by the fifth accused namely P. Ram Mohan, who was employed as the Chief Manager of M/s. Viswapriya Financial Services and Securities Limited and at the behest of one Mr. Ganesan, working as Senior Executive in the company, he and his family members had invested a total amount of Rs. 6,60,000/- in a scheme known as 'Prime Investment Scheme'. The de facto complainant was issued with secured non convertible debentures, which actually matured for payment. According to the de facto complainant, he and his family members were issued with four cheques along with covering letters indicating as though the de facto complainant requested the transfer of investments to a company by name M/s. Quadrangle Trading Services Limited in a scheme known as 'Liquid Plus Scheme'. According to the de facto complainant, he never made any request for the transfer of investments and when he presented the cheques for payment, they returned dishonoured.
4. Though the complaint was lodged way back on 21.10.2013, the hands of the police got tied up due to certain collateral proceedings, without reference to which, the plea for anticipatory bail cannot be understood. Hence, I am constrained to make a reference to some collateral proceedings.
5. The petitioner herein admittedly promoted about 49 companies, whose particulars are as follows :
6. Though the petitioner was/is a director only in a few of them, the employees of some of these companies happen to be the directors of the other companies. In other words, the petitioner has direct or indirect control over the above 49 companies.
7. When M/s. Viswapriya (India) Limited, which is the first accused in Cr. No. 5 of 2013 (in relation to which, the fourth accused has come up with this anticipatory bail petition), plunged into a financial crisis, one of the companies promoted by the petitioner herein by name M/s. Analog Financial Services Private Limited came up with an application in Comp.A. No. 1007 of 2013 on the file of the Company Court seeking a direction to convene, hold and conduct a meeting of the secured debenture holders of M/s. Viswapriya (India) Limited for the purpose of considering a scheme of arrangement under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956. The said application along with the proposed scheme of arrangement was filed before the Company Court in September 2013, at least a month before the criminal complaint was lodged on 21.10.2013. In the said application, this Court directed publication of notices and ordered convening of the meetings of the secured debenture holders on 24.11.2013. A senior member of the Bar........