Sankar v. State Rep. By

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 365, 294(b), 323, 386, 506(i) of I.P.C. in Crime No.132 of 2024, seeks anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant has given a complaint before the respondent police stating that his mother died when he is in childhood and two month before his father also died. The defacto complainant's father having property in various areas. One property measuring about 750 sq.ft. situated at Bala Hospital Vazhapadi. The defacto complainant's father rented the said property to one Sekar, before 40 years. He has not paid the rend regularly to the defacto complainant. Hence, the defacto complainant entered into sale agreement with one Senthil kumar, Mani and received Rs.40,00,000/- and deposited the same in ICICI Bank. Knowing the same, the petitioner and other persons kidnapped the defacto complainant and abused her using filthy language and threatened with dare consequence. Hence the complaint. 3.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner 1/5

is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged against him and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that he is the friend of A2 Sekar and A2 only took the defacto complainant's house for rent and he regularly paid the rent for the past 40 years. The defacto complainant without giving any notice to A2 Sekar sold the property and A2 questioned the same, for which the defacto complainant had given a false case against the petitioner. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent submitted that the petitioner along with A2 threatened, illegally restrained and obtained his signature and finger print in a blank sheet from the defacto complainant.

In fact the defacto complainant is the original owner and A2 is the tenant. At the instigation of A2 the petitioner has committed the offence. The petitioner herein has three previous cases. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) for the respondent and perused the entire materials available on record.

2/5

6.Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) and considering the gravity of the offence and also taking note of the fact that the case is at initial stage and it needs detailed investigation. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 7.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 17.04.2024 ah 3/5

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

ah 4/5

17.04.2024 5/5