Selvasundari v. The State Rep By Its,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Twenty Seventh day of June Two Thousand Twenty Two PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.14632 of 2022 SELVASUNDARI [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ] Vs THE STATE REP BY ITS, [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CCB-III POLICE STATION, CHENNAI CRIME NO.79 OF 2022.
For Petitioner : M/S.P.SARANATH Advocate For Respondent : MR.A.DAMODARAN, Additional public Prosecutor PETITION FOR BAIL 439 Cr.P.C.
ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 23.05.2022 at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 406, 409, 420, 120B of IPC, in Crime No.79 of 2022, seeks bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that there are totally five accused in which the petitioner is arrayed as A3. It is alleged that the petitioner colluded with other accused persons and registered a settlement deed in favour of A2. Hence the complaint.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 23.05.2022. The petitioner has nothing to do with the allegation as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, he sought for bail to the petitioner.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
5. It is seen that there are totally 5 accused in which the petitioner is arrayed as A3. When the petitioner was working as a registering authority in a Sub-Registration Office, Thiruporur, the petitioner registered a settlement deed in favour of A2 which was executed by A1, on the strength of the fabricated documents in favour of A1 vide Document No.1512 of 1971. It is also seen that A4 and A5 are employees of the Registration Office and they fabricated the sale deed in favour of the first accused in respect of the subject property to an extent of 5.88 acres as if it was purchased by the first accused. Thereafter, the first accused executed a settlement deed in favour of A2 without producing any parent documents as if the parent documents are missing. Therefore, the petitioner colluded with the other accused and registered a settlement deed in favour of A2 in respect of the property owned by the defacto complainant which was purchased by him in the year 1981 vide Document No.2441 of 1980. That apart, the petitioner is also facing other vigilance cases.
6. Taking into consideration of the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
7.
Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. -sd/- 27/06/2022 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 INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CCB III, POLICE STATION, CHENNAI 2 THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, PUZHAL, CHENNAI 3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.
+2 CC to M/S.P.SARANATH Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.NO.10033 CRL OP.14632/2022 Date :27/06/2022 JPA 04/07/2022 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/