Madras High Court

P.V.Deepak Govind Prasad vs The State Rep. By on 3 January, 2025

                                                                                     Crl.RC No.2284 of 2024


                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                   RESERVED ON : 20.12.2024

                                               PRONOUNCED ON : 03.01.2025

                                                           CORAM

                                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

                                                    Crl.R.C.No.2284 of 2024

                     P.V.Deepak Govind Prasad                   ... Petitioner/A17

                                                             Vs.

                     The State rep. by
                     The Additional Superintendent of Police,
                     Economic Offence Wing-II,
                     Headquarters,
                     Ashok Nagar, Chennai.
                     (Crime No.7 of 2022)          ... Respondent/Complainant

                     PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 r/w 401 of
                     Cr.P.C., to call for the records in Crl.M.P.No.2828 of 2024 on the file of
                     the learned Special Judge, Special Court under TNPID Act, Chennai –
                     600 104 and set aside the order dated 03.12.2024 in CC No.9 of 2023 on
                     the file learned Special Judge, Special Court under TNPID Act, Chennai
                     against Cr.No.7 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police.

                                  For Petitioner     : Mr.G.Ravikumar

                                  For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak,
                                              Additional Public Prosecutor



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                     Page No.1 of 12
                                       Crl.RC No.2284 of 2024




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                     Page No.2 of 12
                                                                                   Crl.RC No.2284 of 2024


                                                          ORDER

The Criminal Revision Case challenges the order dated 03.12.2024

dismissing the petition filed under Section 167(2) Crl.P.C.

2. The respondent had filed the final report in CC No.9 of 2023

against the petitioner and a few other accused for alleged offences under

sections 120(B), 420, 406 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 5 of The Banning

of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019 (BUDS Act) and Section

58(B)(1) of the RBI Act.

3. The allegations against the petitioner broadly are that the

petitioner was one of the Directors of two companies by the names

'Aarudhra Garments Private Limited' and 'Aarudhra Events and

Entertainments Private Limited'; that the petitioner was involved in the

collection of huge sums in cash from the Branch Directors of the 1st

accused company in the month of May 2022; that those unregulated

deposits collected from the public were retained by him in cash in

connivance of A9-Rajasekar Veeraraghavan; and that investigation

revealed that the petitioner had misappropriated the money collected as

deposits and diverted the money to purchase cars and valuable items

besides retaining huge amount as cash.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

4. The petitioner was shown as absconding in the final report and

after the filing of the final report, the petitioner was arrested on

08.07.2023 and the respondent sought for remand stating that further

investigation is required to discover how and where the petitioner had

concealed and diverted the money earned by committing the offences and

also sought for police custody.

5. The petitioner filed an application in Crl.M.P.No.2828 of 2024

seeking statutory bail on the ground that though he was arrested on

08.07.2023, the further report has not been filed by the respondent as on

date and hence, he is entitled to statutory bail. This was opposed by the

State and on 03.12.2024, the learned Special Judge dismissed the said

petition on the ground that the petitioner is not entitled to statutory bail.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the

respondent had filed an incomplete report and hence, after his arrest they

sought for judicial remand and police custody stating that further custody

is required for recovery of money concealed by the petitioner and to find

out the money diversion and to prevent him from tampering with the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

witnesses; and that this would show that the investigation is pending and

the final report filed is an incomplete one and therefore, the petitioner is

entitled to statutory bail.

7.(i) The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, per contra

submitted that the legal issue involved in this case is settled in Central

Bureau of Investigation v Kapil Wadhawan and Another, reported in

(2024) 3 SCC 734, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that

where a final report is filed and further investigation is pending, the

accused is not entitled to statutory bail.

(ii). The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also submitted that

only after the investigation, the petitioner was arrayed as an accused and

in the final report, the role played by the petitioner was clearly stated and

therefore, what is sought to be conducted is only a further investigation

and that will not give a right to the petitioner for statutory bail.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner in response would submit

that the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court would be applicable

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

only if the respondent is able to show that the investigation is in respect

of other accused, whereas, in this case, the investigation is in respect of

this accused.

9. Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on

either side.

10. Admittedly, the bail petition filed by the petitioner was

dismissed on merits by this Court by the order dated 18.11.2024 in

Crl.OP No.24490 of 2024. The relevant observations read as follows:

“8. As far as the judgments relied on by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor are concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that while dealing social economic offences, the Court meant to be very conscious and observed, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The Economic offence having deep rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds needs to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country and also it is clear that the economic offender should not be dealt as general offender, because economic offenders run parallel economy and they are serious threat to the national economy. In the case on hand also, the allegations as against this petitioner are serious in nature and he was one of the Directors of the accused company. Therefore, the said case laws are squarely applicable to the present facts of the case.”

11. Thereafter, the petitioner sought for statutory bail before the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

learned Special Judge mainly on the ground that the final report filed

against him is incomplete and since, further investigation is being

conducted in respect of his role and the further report is yet to be filed, he

is entitled to statutory bail. The trial Court by the impugned order had

observed that since final report is filed, the right to obtain statutory bail is

extinguished and that merely because further investigation is pending, the

statutory bail cannot be granted by citing the judgment of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court Kapil Wadhawan's case [cited supra].

12. As stated earlier, the primary contention of the learned counsel

for the petitioner is that an incomplete final report was filed and since, the

further investigation is pending to probe the role of the accused, the

judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred above would not be

applicable to the facts of the case. The learned counsel further submitted

that the learned Special Judge had erroneously taken cognizance of the

offence on the basis of an incomplete final report. It is seen that the order

taking cognizance has not been challenged by the petitioner. Be that as it

may. The petitioner was shown as an accused in the final report filed by

the respondent under Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C., although he was not

named in the FIR. The prosecution had collected the evidence as regards

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

the role and the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offences.

Upon his arrest, the prosecution sought for extension of remand and also

for police custody on the following grounds:

“(i) Further investigation is required for the recovery of money concealed by him.

(ii) To find out the money diversion through his associates and friends

(iii) To prevent him from tampering of the witnesses and destruction of evidences.”

13. From the above, it would be clear that what is sought to be

investigated is not the role of the petitioner in the alleged offences, but as

to where he had concealed the proceeds of crime and diverted the same.

The object of fixing a statutory limit of detention if the investigation is

not completed is to ensure that the accused is not kept in detention for an

unlimited period while the investigation on the involvement and the role

played by him is pending. In the instant case, the final report discloses

the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offences. What is sought

to be probed in the further investigation is to find out where the petitioner

had diverted the money and concealed it.

14. That apart on 23.01.2024, the prosecution had sought for

further investigation in respect of the other absconding accused as well

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

and to collect the evidence in respect of 85045 depositors. The said

further investigation is still pending. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Kapil Wadhawan's case [cited supra], had considered a very similar issue

and at paragraph Nos.13 and 25, held as follows:

“13. In the instant appeal, the main question that falls for our consideration is, whether the respondents were entitled to the benefit of the statutory right conferred under the proviso to sub section 2 of Section 167 Cr.P.C, on the ground that the investigation qua some of the accused named in the FIR was pending, though the report under sub-section (2) of Section 173 (Chargesheet) against respondents along with the other accused was filed within the prescribed time limit and though the cognizance of the offence was taken by the special court before the consideration of the application of the respondents seeking default bail under Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C.?

25. In view of the afore-stated legal position, we have no hesitation in holding that the chargesheet having been filed against the respondents-accused within the prescribed time limit and the cognizance having been taken by the Special Court of the offences allegedly committed by them, the respondents could not have claimed the statutory right of default bail under Section 167(2) on the ground that the investigation qua other accused was pending. Both, the Special Court as well as the High Court having committed serious error of law in disregarding the legal position enunciated and settled by this Court, the impugned orders deserve to be set aside and are accordingly set aside.”

15. The instant case is one where the role of the petitioner and his

involvement were already determined by the respondent and the learned

Special Judge had taken cognizance of the offences committed by the

petitioner. It was only thereafter, the petitioner was arrested. The

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

remand and police custody of the petitioner was sought for the reasons

stated above. Therefore, it cannot be said that the investigation was

pending qua the petitioner, as regards his involvement in the crime. What

was sought to be done by the investigating officer was further

investigation to identify the proceeds of crime. Therefore, this Court is of

the view that the petitioner would not be entitled to a statutory bail. That

apart the investigation is pending qua other accused. In such