V.Subramanian v. State Rep By

Crl.O.P.No. 10201 of 2022 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 34, 109, 419, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC in Crime No.162 of 2021, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that there are totally four accused, in which, the petitioners are arrayed as A1 and A4. The subject property belonged to the third party and he settled at Malaysia. Utilising the said circumstances, the first accused impersonating him as the land owner executed a power of attorney to A2. In turn, A2 executed the sale deed in favour of A3, who is the wife of A2. Thereafter A3 executed the sale deed in favour of the defacto complainant. A4 is the master, behind the entire crime, who received a sum of Rs.89,00,000/- (Rupees Eighty Nine Lakh only) for execution of sale deed. Now, the complaint lodged by the original owner of the property and the sale deed executed in favour of the defacto complainant herein cancelled.

3. That apart, the petitioner filed anticipatory bail before this Court on three occasions and in all the occasions, when this Court was about to dismiss the anticipatory bail, they had withdrawn the petitions. After filing this petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought adjournment for five

times. Even today, the learned counsel representing the counsel on record would submit that the counsel on record has gone out of station and seeks adjournment.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the intervenor submitted that on three occasions, already this Court about to dismiss the anticipatory bail, the petitioners had withdrawn their petitions. The petitioners are simply filing the anticipatory bail petitions to escape from the arrest. That apart, the second petitioner, claiming to be an Advocate keep on filing the anticipatory bail petition and withdrawing the same. The petitioners are committed a very serious offence as against the defacto complainant. Therefore, he prayed to dismiss this petition.

5. Considering the above circumstances, the petitioners had committed very serious offence, custodial interrogation of the petitioners is very much required, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 06.07.2022 Lpp

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

Lpp Crl.O.P.No. 10201 of 2022 06.07.2022