K.Selvakumar v. The State Rep By Its

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Seventeenth day of June Two Thousand Twenty Two PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.13847 of 2022 1 K.SELVAKUMAR [ PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED ] 2 MALARVIZHI SELVAKUMAR Vs THE STATE REP BY ITS [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE (CRIME), M4 REDHILLS POLICE STATION, THIRUVALLUR DISTRICT.

(CRIME NO.397/2022) For Petitioner : M/S.J.SURESH Advocate For Respondent : MR.A.DAMODARAN, Additional Public Prosecutor 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 punishable under Sections 406, 465, 467, 468, 471, 420 and r/w 34 IPC in Crime No.397 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the property originally belongs to A2 and intended to sell the property to de facto complainant for the total sale consideration of Rs.50 Lakhs. Out of the total sale consideration, the de facto complainant paid only Rs.25 Lakhs and assured to repay the balance Rs.25 Lakhs in a stipulated period. However, the de facto complainant failed to pay the remaining amount and executed the power of attorney in favour of the A2. In turn, A2 sold the said property to A4. A1 is none other than the husband of A4. Further, the case is that A3 who is Document writer failed to produce the original parent document of the subject property, he produced the Non Traceable Certificate which was obtained from another document by changing the document numbers and produced before the Registrar Office and registered the document in favour of the A4. Hence, this complaint.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that after execution of sale deed in favour of A4, the financier from whom the property originally was pledged by the de facto complainant lodged complaint in which A4/petitioner herein not settled the entire amount and received the original parent documents in respect of the said property and she is in possession and enjoyment of the said property along with original parent documents. As far as A1 is concerned who is husband of A4 and he is nothing to do with the crime. Further he would submit that the petitioners are an innocent persons and they are no way connected with the alleged offence. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent police would submit that these petitioners were registered the said property by using the forged documents with the defacto complainant. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and also taking note of the fact that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required. Therefore, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions.

6. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate Madhavaram, Thiruvallur District, on condition that the petitioners shall execute separate bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that: [a] the petitioners and the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity.

[b] the first petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at morning 10.30 a.m. and evening 5.00 p.m. for a period of two weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation. [c] the second petitioner shall appear before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation. [d] the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

[e] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

[f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560]. [g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.

-sd/- 17/06/2022 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 JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MADHAVARAM, THIRUVALLUR DISTRICT.

2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE THIRUVALLUR [FOR INFORMATION] 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE (CRIME), M4 REDHILLS POLICE STATION, THIRUVALLUR DISTRICT.

4 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

CC to M/S.J.SURESH Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.13847/2022 Date :17/06/2022 CSK 24/06/2022