P.Shankar v. State Rep By

Crl.O.P.No.2000 of 2022 R.PONGIAPPAN, J.

The petitioner who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences under Sections 120-B, 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 34 and 109 of IPC, in Crime No.90 of 2021, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that vide sale deed dated 18.04.1983, the husband of the defacto complainant had purchased a plot to an extent of 2400 sq.ft from one Baby Ammal. Later, the petitioner along with other accused, impersonating the defacto complainant's husband and created a forged document to get wrongful gain. Further, she had find out that the petitioner and others created a bogus power of attorney and by using the same, they executed a sale deed in favour of the defacto complainant. Ultimately, he received a sale price to an extent of Rs.33 lakhs through ICICI Bank and Rs.27 lakhs by cash. Hence, the Law Enforcing Agency has registered a case against the petitioner.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that the petitioner is the only the bread winner of the family. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned counsel for the intervenor submitted that the petitioner along with other accused impersonating the husband of the defacto complainant created a forged document.

5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police by filing counter submitted that at the time of alleged occurrence, the petitioner who is arrayed as A7, created a bogus power of attorney, entrusted the same to the other accused and received Rs.30 lakhs.

6. The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for either side are considered.

7. As of now, the misappropriated amount is not recovered. Further, the alleged power of attorney is not cancelled. Therefore, in the said circumstances, for completing investigation, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is very much necessary. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to allow this petition.

8. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 17.02.2022 Gv/Vv (2/2)

R.PONGIAPPAN,J.

Gv/Vv Crl.O.P.No.2000 of 2022 17.02.2022