Jeganathan v. State Rep By
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Twentieth day of June Two Thousand Twenty Two PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.14192 of 2022 1 JEGANATHAN [ PETITIONERS / ACCUSED ] 2 JEYARAJ Vs STATE REP BY [ RESPONDENT ] THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CITY CRIME BRANCH, TIRUPPUR CITY.
(CRIME NO.13 OF 2022) For Petitioners : M/S.M.SOUNDAR VIJAY ARUL RAM Advocate For Respondent : MR.A.DAMODARAN, Additional public Prosecutor For Intervenor : M/S.SHANMUGARAJESWARAN, Advocate 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 offence under Sections 420, 419, 465, 468, 471 r/w 34 of I.P.C., in Crime No.13 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the de facto complainant doing business of Real estate. On such event, the petitioners approached the de-facto complainant to sell the vacant land at Periyapalayam village, Tiruppur district. The owner of the said land is one Shanmugasundaram who was informed that the original documents pertaining to the above said land was lost at Kancheepuram where the daughter of the land owner was residing. The petitioners were handed over the Non Traceable Certificate for the lost original document in No.46 of 2021 along with Xerox copies of the parent document to the de-facto complainant, thereafter de-facto complainant and his friend one Sangeetharajan purchased the said land and made name transfer in
the patta. At the time of cleaning and installing fence at the land, one Shanmugasundaram informed that he is the owner of the land. Thereafter, the de-facto complainant tried to contact the petitioners, but they have refused to attend their calls and came to know he was cheated. Hence, the complaint.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence. The petitioners were the land brokers, working for the brokerage. He would further submit that the false case has been foisted as against the petitioners. Hence he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that totally five accused in this case and the petitioners are arrayed as A2 and A3. The first accused propagates himself as original owner of the said land and other accused who are the land brokers. They sold out the property in favour of the de-facto complainant for the sale consideration of Rs.1,22,79,000/-. As well as the petitioners are concerned, the petitioners are land brokers and they have cheated the de-facto complainant with the fabricated forged documents with the help of A1 and the said A1 is still absconding. 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 the petitioners have committed very heinous offence and custodial interrogation of the petitioners are very much required. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. -sd/- 20/06/2022 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 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CITY CRIME BRANCH, TIRUPPUR CITY.
2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.
CC to M/S.M.SOUNDAR VIJAY ARUL RAM Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.14192/2022 Date :20/06/2022 JPA 01/07/2022