L.Livingston v. The State Rep By Its

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Seventh day of February Two Thousand Twenty Two PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice R. PONGIAPPAN CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.2600 of 2022 L.LIVINGSTON [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ] Vs THE STATE REP BY ITS [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, J-8, NEELANKARAI POLICE STATION, CHENNAI DISTRICT.

CR. NO.36/2022 For Petitioner : M/S.M.PRAVIN Advocate For Respondent : MR. S.SANTHOSH, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 420 & 34 of IPC, in Crime No.36 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. Totally there are 29 accused in this case. The petitioner herein is arrayed as A26. The case of the prosecution is that on 26.01.2022, the defacto complainant, who is working as a Tahsildar, preferred a complaint to the respondent police that more than 156 Acres of lands encroached in Injambakkam Village, Sholinganallur Taluk, Chennai District and as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in WP.No.12125 of 2013, notice has been issued on 10.01.2022. Few encroachers constructed buildings and later rent to huge money and others have been cheated the public. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submits that the petitioner being the purchaser innocently purchased the Government land. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appeared for the respondent police submitted that during the relevant point of time, after knowing the fact that the property belongs to Government, the petitioner and others had purchased the property and therefore the act of the petitioner cannot said to be without any intention to commit this offence. He further submits that there is no previous case pending against the petitioner. However, he vehemently opposed for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 5.The submission made by the learned counsel on either side is considered.

6. The averments found in the copy of the FIR disclose the fact that at the relevant point of time, the property owned by the Government was sold to the various persons, though it is alleged that the petitioner is the purchaser, it would necessary to identify whether the petitioner is having dishonest intention to deceive the Government or not. Being the reason as of now the investigation is in initial stage, if the petitioner is released on bail, he may tamper the witness and hamber the investigation.

7. Therefore, considering the nature of the offence committed by the petitioner, if anticipatory bail is granted, it would affect the process of investigation. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

-sd/- 07/02/2022 This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned TRUE COPY Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104. TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, J-8, NEELANKARAI POLICE STATION, CHENNAI DISTRICT.

2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

CC to M/S.M.RAVIKUMAR Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.2600/2022 Date :07/02/2022 INBA~14/02/2022 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/