Judgment : 1. Heard. 2. Mr. G. Thiyagarajan, the proprietor of Sri Thiyagaraja Enterprises, the petitioner herein, is seeking anticipatory bail, apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent Police in respect of the case registered against him for the offences under Sections 120B, 409, 420 and 477 (A) of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Mr. T.S. Ramarathinam, counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner is a qualified Civil Engineer and he established a Civil engineering Contractors concern under the name and style of Sri Thiyagaraja Enterprises in the Year 1986 and that in 1993, when tenders were called for for launching Periyar-Vaigai Link Canal Work, he applied for the same and he was declared successful and after completing his work in April, 1995, he received part payments and since other payments were not made, he filed a suit for the recovery of the said sum and that therefore, now at the instance of the Government, a false case has been registered against the petitioner by the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Madurai. On the strength of the above defence case, counsel for the petitioner would urge that the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail. 4. In order to substantiate the said contention, the affidavit of the petitioner and the copy of the plaint in C.S.No.1284 of 1995 pending before the Original Side of this High Court have been filed before this Court for perusal. 5. Government Advocate would oppose the application vehemently by contending that this a case of looting the Government funds to the tune of several crores by the petitioner with the connivance of the officials concerned. He would also submit that the petitioner has to be arrested and interrogated for unearthing the further materials during the course of investigation. 6. I have carefully considered the rival contentions made by either of the parties. I have also gone through the Case Diary. 7. The following factors are brought to light in the course of investigation. Al Mr. Ekambaram, was the Managing Director from February, 1993 to May, 1993 and A2 Manimozhi was the Managing Director from May, 1993 to July, 1994. Government had entrusted the project work of Modernisation of Periyar-Vaigai Irrigation System Base II to P.W.D. Irrigation Branch. One of the works in the scheme was the Periyar Vaigai Link Canal at an estimated cost of Rs.40 crores. 8. Government had entrusted the project work of Modernisation of Periyar-Vaigai Irrigation System Base II to P.W.D. Irrigation Branch. One of the works in the scheme was the Periyar Vaigai Link Canal at an estimated cost of Rs.40 crores. 8. The T.N.S.C.C. Limited gave Sub-Contracts in respect of Part-I (Earth work) for an estimated value of Rs.3,19,18,274 to three persons, namely, Thiru Rao Constructions, Thiru Arogirajan and Thiru T. Thanikodi. This was in the Year 1991. After entering into the agreements, they started executing the work. In February 1992, Al Ekambaram joined as Managing Director of T.N.S.C.C. Limited and during May, 1993 arranged to re-entrust this item of work to A-3 Mr. Thiagarajan, the petitioner herein, for all the three reaches, even without giving notice of termination to the three sub contractors with whom the work was entrusted earlier. Even before the agreement was executed with A3, Al arranged for payment of Rs.9 lakhs to him. Petitioner in connivance with Al had arranged to obtain collusive bogus quotations from two others along with his quotation with reduced rate to enable Al to give these items of the work to the petitioner. A sum of Rs. 26 lakhs was paid to the petitioner as part payment. A2 Mr. Manimozhi, who succeeded Al on 35. 1993, in connivance with Al and A3 approved the said proposal. It is clear that in all the three items of work, the petitioner arranged to obtain the bogus collusive quotations from two other persons. The materials so far collected also would reveal that excess payment were made to the petitioner even when the petitioner had abandoned the work during December, 1994 before completing and thereby caused loss to the tune of Rs. 2.13 crores to T.N.S.C.C. Limited. 9. The reading of the statements given by the witnesses would clearly reveal that there is a conspiracy between Al to A3 to cheat the Government to the tune of several crores and that the petitioner produced quotations for himself and also two other sets of quotations in the name of Saravanakumar and Balakumar so as to recommend him as sub contractor. The statement of Shanmugavelu, Suresh Babu and Saravanan would support these accusations. It is brought to my notice that the application of A2 for anticipatory bail has been dismissed by this Court. 10. The statement of Shanmugavelu, Suresh Babu and Saravanan would support these accusations. It is brought to my notice that the application of A2 for anticipatory bail has been dismissed by this Court. 10. The fact that the petitioner filed a suit for the recovery of the balance amount would not in any way help the petitioner in the matter of grant of granting bail, more particularly, when the petitioner after abandoning the work collected several crores of rupees from the Government and that too, by becoming a sub contractor after production of bogus quotations from two others. 11. In view of the clandestine and fraud dealings alleged by the prosecution, for which, materials also have been collected, I do not find any ground to grant anticipatory bail. Therefore, petition is dismissed.