V Kumaravel v. State Rep By
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of IPC in Crime No.23 of 2022, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution as per the de facto complainant, the Secretary, Sri Kamatchi Amman Temple Devasthanam, No.60, Bharathi Street, Puducherry-1 is that the land in R.S.No.292/4 and R.S.No.291/5 in Cadastre No.156, Pymash No.285 to an extent of 00.31.60 Hec. and 00.29.20 Hec. at Saram Revenue Village belonged to one Muthusamy Achary, who dedicated the said land to Sri Kamatchi Amman Temple by executing a Will on 06.03.1935. Whereas, the petitioner/A5V.Kumaravel along with other accused by creating the fabricated Possession Certificate and Patta in favour of A1-Rathinavel, settled the said land in favour of A2-Mohanasundari, who in turn settled the same in favour of M/s.Sabari Educational Society. Hence, the case.
3. The learned Counsel appearing 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 would further submit that the petitioner is the member of M/s.Sabari Educational Society. He would further submit that A1-Rathinavel, who is the owner of the property, based on Possession Certificate and Patta issued by the Revenue Department had settled the land in favour of A2-Mohanasundari, his wife, who in turn had settled the same in favour of the said M/s.Sabari Educational Society and A3-V.Manoharan was in possession of the land from the year 2011 and that the officials after due verification of revenue records had permitted A3-V.Manoharan to start an Educational Institution in that land.
Meanwhile, Sri Kamatchi Amman Devesthanam, represented by its Secretary/Trustee Mr.Subramanian, had filed a proceedings in S.P.No.5080/DOS/ST1/23(1)2016, seeking for correction of entries in revenue records in respect of the land located in R.S.No.291/5 and R.S.No.292/4 of No.
Settlement Act, 1970 and the petition came to be dismissed on 26.08.2019 and the Trustee had also preferred an appeal in A.No.21 of 2019 before the Director of Survey and Settlement Records, Puducherry and the appeal was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 23.06.2021. In the Appellate Order, it has been held that the Trustee of the Temple has not even filed a single scrap of document to show that he has complied with the conditions to become absolute owner of the property. Meanwhile, pending the revenue proceedings, the Trustee had preferred a complaint on 23.10.2019 and a case came to be registered in Crime No.23 of 2022. He would further submit that the major part of the investigation is over and the entire case of the prosecution is borne out by the records.
4. The respondent has filed a detailed Counter Affidavit.
5. Mr.K.S.Mohandas, learned Public Prosecutor (Puducherry) appearing for the respondent would submit that it is the case where the alleged petitioner along with the other accused and officials in the
Revenue Department had fabricated the documents and by tampering with revenue records and making wrong entries in the revenue records had grabbed the properties worth about several crores belonging to Sri Kamatchi Amman Temple. He would further submit that A1 and A2 have no rights on the property and they have along with A4-Village Administrative Officer have fabricated the Possession Certificate and Patta based on which, A2 has settled the property in favour of A3-V.Manoharan. He would further submit that A2 has no relationship with the trust/trustee and she has settled the property in favour of the trust which is illegal. Based on the same, the accused and the Trust have grabbed the property and they have started an Educational Institution, later closed the same and sold the valuable lands to third parties.
It is the large scale scam/fraud, where, the property belonging to Sri Kamatchi Amman Temple and has been usurped by the persons/criminals with the nexus of officials and the investigation is still pending. He would further submit that if the anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, there is every chance of him getting absconded and interfering with investigation.
investigation and it would be difficult to commit the case/complete the investigation. He would further submit that the petitioner has previous cases similar in nature registered against him. Therefore, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
6. At this juncture, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the the petitioner is ready and willing to furnish solvent sureties and to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed on him and the petitioner is also ready to stay far away from the jurisdiction of the respondent police. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
7. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record including the First Information Report.
8. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions made by Counsel on either side, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.
9. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that:
[a] the petitioner and the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of his Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity.
[b] the petitioner shall stay at Yanam and report before the Inspector of Police/Station House Officer, Yanam Town Police Station, Puducherry, everyday at 10.30 a.m., until further orders;
[c] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;
[d] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness 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 petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner 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];
[f] If the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC. 13.03.2023 arb
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
arb 13.03.2023