P.Vetrigulasekaran v. Istate Rep By
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Fourth day of March Two Thousand Twenty Two PRESENT The Hon`ble Dr Justice G. JAYACHANDRAN CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.3407 of 2022 1 P.VETRIGULASEKARAN [ PETITIONERS / ACCUSED ] 2 SIVAPRAGASAM Vs STATE REP BY [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KULLANCHAVADI POLICE STATION, CUDDALORE DISTRICT.
(CRIME NO. 129/2022) For Petitioner : M/S.K.VIJAYAKUMAR Advocate For Respondent : MR.S.SANTHOSH, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) For Intervenor : MR.S.VENKATESH Advocate PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners/A1 and A3, who apprehend arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 506(ii), 406, 420 of IPC in Crime No.129 of 2022, on the file of the respondent police, seek Anticipatory bail.
2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) for the respondent and the intervenor. 3.Based on the complaint given by the defacto complainant, First Information Report was registered on 30.01.2022. As per the F.I.R., these petitioners along with the other two accused persons have made the defacto complainant to believe that they will sell their property worth about Rs.66 lakhs and received the money by cash and thereafter, they have created a document by way of a settlement to the minor children and appointing one among them as a guardian.
4.Perusal of the alleged agreement for sale dated 10.03.2021 and the subsequent receipts would go to show that it is a case of civil nature where the defacto complainant has to work out his remedy before the Civil Court and there is violation of criminal intimidation when the alleged sale deed has been executed. However, the defacto complainant counsel who is before this court as intervenor would submit that since the property was already sold to one Annalakshmi before the execution of the agreement for sale, the intention to deceive the defacto complainant at the inception itself is palpably seen. This court is unable to accept this submission for the two reasons. If the property already been sold to one Annalakshmi four years ago prior to the alleged agreement for sale, no prudent purchaser would have advanced Rs.
66 lakhs in cash without verifying the Encumbrance Certificate. If really, a honest purchaser, who wants to purchase a property of high value, he would have paid the consideration through bank transaction or would have registered the document immediately after parting away Rs.66 lakhs in cash. Here, the defacto complainant has done neither of this. Therefore, it is always open to him to prove the alleged transaction before a competent civil court and for the purpose of investigation, even if there is any criminal intention on the part of the accused, detaining them in prison may not be required.
5. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
6. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the Learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Kurinchipadi on condition that the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh Only) each, with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that:
(a)the petitioners and the sureties shall affix his photographs and left thumb impression in the surety bond and the Court concerned may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;
(b)the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;
(c)the petitioners shall report before the Investigating Officer as and when required and shall co-operate for investigation. (d)the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;
(e) on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/ Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions has been imposed and the petitioners released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji Vs. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560]; and; (f) if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229-A IPC.
-sd/- 04/03/2022 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 JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KURINCHIPADI, CUDDALORE.
2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE CUDDALORE DISTRICT. [FOR INFORMATION] 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KULLANCHAVADI POLICE STATION, CUDDALORE DISTRICT.
4 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.
+1CC to M/S.K.VIJAYAKUMAR Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.No.3525 CRL OP.3407/2022 Date :04/03/2022 CSK 14/03/2022