Vijayakumar @ Choppa Vijayakumar v. State By
M.DHANDAPANI, J.
The petitioner, who is arrayed as A-5 in Crime No.12 of 2021, which was registered by the respondent police for the offence u/s 120 (B), 465, 468, 471, 477 (A), 420 r/w 34 IPC, which has since been transferred to CB-CID and reassigned Crime No.4 of 2021, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The facts in issue pertain to forging of documents based on which compensation was received by the accused in the crime, in which the petitioner had also played his part as power agent of A-1.
3. It is the averment of the petitioner that the investigation officer has registered the case in a hurried manner without considering the facts and circumstances. It is further averred by the petitioner that the petitioner has merely acted as power agent of A-1 and based on the said document, had sold a portion of the prperty to Hanumantha Rao, It is the further averment of the petitioner that he not a beneficiary to any of the fraudulent acts of A-1. It is the further averment of the petitioner that A-1 1/5
and A-4 have already been enlarged on bail and, therefore, the petitioner, being a co-accused, who is directly not involved in any of the fraudulent transactions may also be granted anticipatory bail with any stringent conditions.
4. This Court, vide a detailed order dated 9.7.2021 had dismissed the anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner and certain other accused, wherein this Court had observed that the entire transaction, which have been discussed therein by the Court, are only a tip of the iceberg, as to substantiate the aforesaid contentions, the respondent has placed documents, which clearly revealed that there are many lapses in the mutation of revenue records, grant of patta, execution of sale deeds and sale agreement and payment of compensation, which has eroded the exchequer of a chunk of money, which requires an in-depth investigation. The petitioner as well as the other persons, who have been arrayed as accused, being persons of means and enjoying much clout, this Court had felt that it would not be wise to grant anticipatory bail to any of the petitioners therein. 2/5
5. On the aforesaid reasoning, this Court had rejected the prayer of the petitioners therein for grant of anticipatory bail. The present petition for anticipatory bail has been filed by A-5.
6. A perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the petition reveals that no changed circumstances, which warrants a different view by this Court has been placed before the Court. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner only pleads that the petitioner will cooperate in every manner with the investigation and that he will not cause any inconvenience to the investigating agency by tampering of records. It is further submitted that the petitioner has also no bad antecedents and that there is no necessity for custodial interrogation.
7. Except for the above, no circumstance, which could be said to be a circumstance, which stands changed from the previous circumstance, necessitating a different view from this Court has been placed before the Court.
3/5
8. Time and again, it has been reiterated that invoking the jurisdiction u/s 438 Cr.P.C., for anticipatory bail should be done only when there is really a changed circumstance, which necessitates revisiting the earlier order passed. However, this Court is of the considered opinion that Section 438 Cr.P.C. is invoked more often than not, even when there is no changed circumstance, however, with a mere rider in the anticipatory bail application that there is a changed circumstance. Without a changed circumstance, which materially alters the status of the case, this Court cannot consider the anticipatory bail of the accused, even if it is filed 'n' number of times.
9. For the reason aforesaid, no case is made out and no changed circumstance exists in the present case for grant of anticipatory bail and, accordingly, this petition is dismissed.
05.07.2022 skt/GLN 4/5
M.DHANDAPANI, J.
skt/GLN 05.07.2022 5/5