C.K.Saravanan v. The Inspector Of Police

Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.

Heard the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr.N.S.Suganthan, learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) for the respondent.

2. This is the third anticipatory bail petition in connection with case registered on 11.02.2022. A trap was conducted by the respondent based on the complaint given by one Murugan. During the trap, the second accused/surveyor was arrested along with the mocked currency of Rs.5,00,000/-, which is alleged to have been demanded by A1/Tahsildar and A2/Surveyor. A1 is the petitioner before this Court seeking anticipatory bail. This Court on considering the complaint and the course of investigation, held that interrogation on this petitioner is required and hence dismissed the anticipatory bail.

3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, who is before this Court for the 3rd time seeking anticipatory bail, submitted that Page No.1/3

reading of the complaint itself does not indicates any avert act against the petitioner. Futher, he submits that while the patta was re-transfered in the name of de facto complainant on 08.02.2022, pursuant to the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer in his appeal, there is no necessity for demanding any illegal gratification on 11.02.2022.

4. This Court, on perusing the records, is of the opinion that the complaint, as well as the investigation conducted based on the complaint, indicates the role of this petitioner in demanding the illegal gratification in connection with name transfer of the disputed property. Unless the petitioner is secured and taken for custodial interrogation, there cannot be any substantial progress in the investigation.

5. With the above observations, this anticipatory bail petition is dismissed.

12.07.2022 nsa Page No.2/3

Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.

nsa 12.07.2022 Page No.3/3