Dismissed anticipatory bail plea due to financial crisis involvement & non-compliance. Custody needed for repayment verification.

The petition for anticipatory bail was dismissed, emphasizing the petitioner's central role in the financial crisis and his responsibility for repayment. The court highlighted the petitioner's non-compliance with the scheme of arrangement and the lack of clarity regarding his resources as reasons for denying bail. The court stressed the necessity of the petitioner's custody to ascertain his repayment capabilities and ensure compliance with the scheme.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. 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.
3. Financial crisis and scheme of arrangement under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956.
4. Protective orders and their impact on the investigation.
5. Compliance with the scheme of arrangement sanctioned by the Company Court.
6. Role and responsibility of the petitioner as the Managing Director and the kingpin.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Petition for Anticipatory Bail:
The petitioner, the Managing Director of Viswapriya (India) Limited, filed a petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the fourth accused in Crime No.05 of 2013, filed by the Economic Offences Wing II of the Chennai City Police.

2. Alleged Offences:
The complaint was lodged by an individual who claimed that he and his family invested Rs. 6,60,000 in a scheme known as 'Prime Investment Scheme' but were subsequently issued cheques that were dishonoured. The alleged offences include criminal breach of trust (Section 406), cheating (Section 420), and criminal conspiracy (Section 120B) under the IPC, along with violations under the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors Act, 1997.

3. Financial Crisis and Scheme of Arrangement:
The petitioner promoted about 49 companies. When Viswapriya (India) Limited faced a financial crisis, another company promoted by the petitioner, M/s. Analog Financial Services Private Limited, filed an application seeking a scheme of arrangement under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956. The application was filed before the Company Court in September 2013, and a meeting of the secured debenture holders was convened. The majority of debenture holders supported the scheme, and the Company Court sanctioned it on 30.4.2014.

4. Protective Orders:
From the date of the FIR on 21.10.2013, the petitioner enjoyed various protective orders, including stays on proceedings and protection from arrest. These orders were in place until 6.8.2015, after which the police were free to continue their investigation.

5. Compliance with the Scheme of Arrangement:
The petitioner made an unequivocal statement that he alone was responsible for repaying the debenture holders. However, the scheme sanctioned by the Company Court has not been honored fully, with only about Rs. 50.00 Lakhs repaid so far. The court called for detailed information from the petitioner to assess his ability to repay the debenture holders, but the petitioner claimed he needed access to office records without fear of arrest to provide complete details.

6. Role and Responsibility of the Petitioner:
The petitioner is identified as the kingpin and has taken full responsibility for the repayment of dues. Despite the court's efforts to explore the petitioner's resources and ensure repayment, the petitioner remained at large, and the police were unable to secure his custody. The court noted that the petitioner's non-compliance with the scheme and the lack of a clear picture regarding his resources justified the dismissal of the anticipatory bail petition.

Conclusion:
The petition for anticipatory bail was dismissed, accepting the contentions of the prosecution and the intervenors. The court emphasized the petitioner's central role and responsibility in the financial crisis and the need for his custody to ensure a clear picture of the repayment capabilities and compliance with the scheme of arrangement.

---