Banbarasan v. Inspector Of Police

Reserved On 22.08.2023 Pronounced On RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J.

The petitioner/A3 & A2 in Crl.O.P.Nos.3495 & 4125 of 2023 respectively, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences under Sections 406, 420, 465, 468, 471 IPC in Crime No.4 of 2023 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that, these two petitioners along with one Antony Jenith fabricated the documents and made the de-facto complainant to believe and accordingly, he purchased the petitioner's property from the said Antony Jenith, who is represented as Power of Attorney of K.Thyagarajan and T.Kalyani and paid an amount of Rs.99,00,000/- as sale consideration and the incidental charges was added and it is Rs.1,07,00,000/-. Subsequently, he came to know that the said Power of Attorney is bogus and hence, filed a complaint.

3. Initially the matter was referred to mediation in respect

of Senthil Kumar and Banbarasan, in these two Crl.O.P.'s and certain amount is said to have been deposited, however, the mediation has failed. After failure of the mediation, the matter is again posted before this court.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondent submitted that the matter is under investigation.

6. The learned counsel for the intervenor also submitted that the very same persons have cheated another person by name Vadivelu by executing a sale deed to the tune of Rs.99,00,000/- and the same is registered in Crime No.44 of 2022 on the file of the very same respondent police with the same other accused.

7. In Crl.O.P.No.31023 of 2022, the petitioner/A1 have admitted the commission of crime and asked time for settlement of the case and petitioners herein also produced the order copy made in Crl.O.P.No.31169 of 2022. After perusing the two order copies and also the complaints in Crime No.44 of 2022 and the present Crime

No.04 of 2023, I find that these two petitioners are indulging in commission of same offence with various persons and thereby, they have cheated general public based upon the fraudulent general Power of Attorney to the tune of several crores and hence, I find that these petitioners are habitual offenders in land grabbing by making fraudulent general Power of Attorney and cheating the general public in crores.

8. Considering the nature and gravity of the offence and also the stage of the investigation, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

9. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

(1/2) mpl

RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J.

mpl (1/2)