Shahina v. State Rep By

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 120B, 182, 196, 199, 200, 419, 465, 467, 469, 471 of IPC in Crime No. 3 of 2022, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners are alleged to have impersonated and sold the property that belonged to the defacto complainant to third parties. 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 as alleged by the prosecution. Therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that petitioners have impersonated and sold the property that belonged to the defacto complainant to third parties. Therefore, custodial interrogation of the petitioners is very much required. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. While pending anticipatory bail, this Court had given an opportunity to the petitioner to cancel the sale deed executed in favour of

the third parties. However, this Court has already given an interim protection to the petitioners but till today, the petitioners did not take any steps to cancel the sale deed.

5. Considering the above fact and circumstances of the case, as custodial interrogation of the petitioners is very much required, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 28.07.2022 Lpp

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

Lpp Crl.O.P.No. 14231 of 2022 28.07.2022