W.Charles Kamalesan v. State Rep By
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Nineteenth day of April Two Thousand Twenty One PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice M.DHANDAPANI CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.7076 of 2021 1 W.CHARLES KAMALESAN [ PETITIONERS / ACCUSED ] 2 W.JULIA 3 RANJANI 4 R.SARAVANAN Vs STATE REP BY [ RESPONDENT ] THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, ALGSC-I, TEAM-XVII A, CENTRAL CRIME BRANCH, CHENNAI DISTRICT (CR.NO.67/2021) For Petitioner : M/S.SWAMISUBRAMANIAN Advocate For Respondent : MR.T.SHUNMUGARAJESWARAN, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) For Intervenor : M/S R.UMA SUTHAN Advocate PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471 r/w. 34 of IPC, in Crime No.67 of 2021, on the file of the respondent/Police, seek anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant and her daughters purchased 3 plots viz., plot Nos.1021, 1019 and 1023 at VIIIth Main Road, Ram Nagar, Madipakkam in Survey No.120 in the year 1995 ad measuring total extent of 10,500 Sq.ft and they were in undisputed, interrupted and continuous possession of the same from
the date of purchase, it is alleged that during the month of September 2019 while the defacto complainant constructing the compound wall in their plots at that time the 1st petitioner and his hench men has created forged document and grab the entire property of the defacto complainant. Hence, the complaint was registered.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submit tha the 2nd petitioner has purchased a property in Document No.2285 of 1962 to the extent of 9660 Sq.ft in respect of plot No.1023. The defacto complainant had filed a suit in O.S.No.428 of 2019 before the Additional Munsiff, Alandur. He would further submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that the petitioners have created a forged document and grab the property belongs to the defacto complainant. Hence, he vehemently opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
5. The learned counsel for the intervenor/defacto complainant would submit that the petitioners have created a forged document and grab the property belongs to the defcto complainant and threatened her with dire consequences. Hence, he vehemently opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
6.Considering the fact that the petitioners have involved in serious offence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
7.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. -sd/- 19/04/2021 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 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, ALGSC-I, TEAM-XVII A, CENTRAL CRIME BRANCH, CHENNAI DISTRICT 2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.
CC to M/S.SWAMISUBRAMANIAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges +1CC to M/S.R.UMA SUTHAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges Sr.5031 CRL OP.7076/2021 Date :19/04/2021 RVR 30/04/2021