Padmavathy v. State Rep By
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Thirty First day of August Two Thousand Twenty One PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice M.DHANDAPANI CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.14984,14990,15282 AND 15303 of 2021 1.PADMAVATHY [ PETITIONERS / ACCUSED 2.ASHOKKUMAR IN CRL.OP.NO.14984/2021] 1.VIJAYA [IN CRL.OP.NO.14990/2021] 2.KAMATCHI @ AMARAVATHY 3.SEETHA @ SEETHALAKSHMI 1.BALAJI [IN CRL.OP.NO.15282/2021] 2.POONKODI 3.MALLIGA 1.ROJA [IN CRL.OP.NO.15303/2021] 2.ARUN 3.ANAND Vs STATE REP BY [ RESPONDENT] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, [IN ALL THE PETITIONS] SHOLAVARAM POLICE STATION, TIRUVALLUR.
(CRIME NO. 1206 OF 2021) For Petitioner : M/S.V.LOGESH Advocate [IN CRL.OP.NOs.14984,14990 AND 15282/2021] : M/S.R.SHINE KUMAR Advocate [IN CRL.OP.NO.15303/2021] For Respondent : MR.A.GOPINATH, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) [IN ALL THE PETITIONS] PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners, who apprehend arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 294(b), 323, 386, 406, 448, 506(ii) and r/w 34 of IPC in Cr.No.1206 of 2021, seeks anticipatory bail.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners are blood relatives of the deceased. The defacto complainant and her husband ran a real estate agency and they were affected by Covid-19 and admitted in the hospital. At that time, the defacto complainant handed over 4 1⁄2 Sovereigns of gold and mobile phone to A-1, sister of the deceased. During the treatment, the defacto complainant's husband passed away. Taking advantage of that, the petitioners forced the defacto complainant to get out of the house and without the permission of the defacto, taken over all the deeds and documents belong to the deceased and gave life threat to her. Thereafter, the petitioners, with the help of the employee, who worked in the real estate office of the deceased, taken away all the deeds and documents of the real estate agency. Hence, the defacto complainant lodged a complaint against the petitioners.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and he has been falsely implicated in this case and submits that it is purely a civil dispute between the defacto complainant and the petitioners. Hence he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that the defacto complainant is the wife of the deceased. After the death of the deceased, the petitioners forced the defacto complainant to get out of the house and gave life threat and also taken over all the deed and documents belong to the deceased. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the allegation level against the petitioners, this court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. -sd/- 31/08/2021 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, SHOLAVARAM POLICE STATION, TIRUVALLUR.
2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.
CC to M/S.V.LOGESH Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP:14984,14990,15282 & 15303/2021 Date :31/08/2021 CSK 12/10/2021