Nalina v. State Rep By
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.
The petitioners, who apprehend arrest for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 420 and 506(1) of IPC in Crime No.17 of 2024, on the file of the respondent police seek anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that due to land dispute between the petitioners and the de-facto complainant. The petitioners had filed a suit in O.S.No.10 of 2017 on the file of the Sub-Court, Paapirettypatty as against the de-facto complainant. Thereafter, the petitioners and the de-facto complainant had entered compromise them and the petitioners had received a sum of Rs.1,46,00,000/- on 19.10.2023 and the balance amount of Rs.30,00,000/- after withdrawal of the said suit. After receiving the said sum, the petitioners refused to withdraw the said suit. Hence, the complaint.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any such 1/4
offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would also submits that they have been falsely implicated in this case and they will abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court. Therefore, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent submitted that investigation is not completed and it need detailed investigation. He further submitted that A-1 and A-2 were absconded. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
5. The learned counsel for the Intervenor submitted that till date the petitioners and other accused persons have threatened the defacto complainant and her family members.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances, and also considering the submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), it needs detail investigation, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory to the petitioners.
2/4
7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 29.04.2024 kv 3/4
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.
kv 29.04.2024 4/4