Jagannatha Pandian v. State Rep.By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Fourteenth day of July Two Thousand Twenty One PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice M.DHANDAPANI CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.11491 of 2021 JAGANNATHA PANDIAN [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ] Vs 1 STATE REP.BY [ RESPONDENTS ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, V-5, THIRUMANGALAM POLICE STATION, ANNA NAGAR, CHENNAI.

CRIME NO.2584 OF 2012.

2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CENTRAL CRIME BRANCH, 18TH TEAM, VEPERY, CHENNAI - 600 007.

(NOW CASE IS TRANSFERRED TO 2ND RESPONDENT) For Petitioner : M/S. B.MANIMARAN Advocate For Respondent : MR.C.E.PRATAP Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence under Sections 420, 406, 465 and 467 of I.P.C in Crime No.2584 of 2012, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is a reputed real estate developer and also doing construction business. It is alleged that the defacto complainant purchased a property measuring about 40 acres at Koyambedu Vllageo vide five registered sale deeds dated 02.03.2006 Document Nos. 980, 981,982,1084 and 1085 of 2006 at SRO, Anna Nagar. The complainant predecessors in title had been in possession and occupation of the land for more than seven decades. While so the petitioner herein attempting to create documents to show as he has right in the property and caused loss to the complainant, grab the land and extort money from the complainant. Hence the law enforcing registered the case against the petitioner. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that petitioner is claiming ownership for 4.76 acres which originally belongs to the petitioner. He further submits that the F.I.R was referred as "Mistake of Fact" Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate submits that the petitioner is habitual offender and he has one previous case of similar nature. Hence, he vehemently opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Taking into consideration the facts of the case and the nature of offence committed by the petitioner and the petitioner has one previous case of similar nature , this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly this Criminal Original petition is dismissed. -sd/- 14/07/2021 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 INSPECTOR OF POLICE, V-5, THIRUMANGALAM POLICE STATION, ANNA NAGAR, CHENNAI.

2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CENTRAL CRIME BRANCH, 18TH TEAM, VEPERY, CHENNAI - 600 007.

3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

+1CC to M/S. B.MANIMARAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR NO.7477 CRL OP.11491/2021 Date :14/07/2021 MK:23/07/2021 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/