M.Ravi v. State Rep.By Inspector Of Police,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05.03.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN M.Ravi ... Petitioner Vs.
The State represented by, The Inspector of Police, CCB - Team -I, Vepery, Chennai.
(Crime No.3 of 2025).
... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS, pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail, in connection with the Crime No.3 of 2025, pending investigation on the file of the respondent Police. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Purushothaman For Respondent : Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
O R D E R
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 20.02.2025, seeking bail in Crime No.3 of 2025 registered for the offence under Sections 417, 419, 465, 467, 468, 471, 109 and 120 B of IPC.
1/6
2. The case of the prosecution is that petitioner is arrayed as A3 and that, A1 had misrepresented one Bhaavathi Pilla, father of the defacto complainant; that he had executed general power of attorney on 03.01.2019 to A2; and that A2 on the strength of the general power of attorney had executed sale deed on 31.01.2019 to the petitioner; and that the petitioner had mortgaged the said property to the Nationalised Bank; and that A3 defaulted in the repayment of the loan and the property was brought to sale in public auction, which was purchased by A5 and A6. Hence, the case.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the sale deed which was executed in the year 2019 is sought to be challenged; that the petitioner is in custody from 20.02.2025; and that further custody is not required for the purpose of investigation. Hence, he prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner.
4. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) reiterated the prosecution case and opposed for grant of bail to the petitioner. 2/6
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent Police and perused the materials available on record.
6. Considering, nature of allegation against the petitioner; the case is borne out by records; the period of incarceration; and since further custody is not required for the purpose of investigation, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.
7. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on their executing a bond for a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, CCB-CBCID cases at Egmore, Chennai and on further conditions that:
[a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;
[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police on every Monday and Thursday at 3/6
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 absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.
05.03.2025 Sma 4/6
To
1. Metropolitan Magistrate, CCB-CBCID cases, Egmore, Chennai. 2.The Inspector of Police, CCB - Team -I, Vepery, Chennai.
3. The Superintendent, Sub Jail, Saidapet.
4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
5/6
SUNDER MOHAN., J.
Sma 05.03.2025 6/6