Thirunavukkarasu, v. The State Rep. By

Crl.O.P.No.8902 of 2015 R.SUBBIAH, J.

Apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent-Police, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 147, 420, 384, 387, 506(ii) & 120(B) IPC and Section 3 of TNPPDL Act, in Crime No.259 of 2015, the petitioners have approached this Court seeking the relief of anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows_ The defactocomplainant Tr.Elangovan approached the 2nd petitioner Kuber @ Kubendran for getting loan, who in turn introduced the 1st accused Kathiravan (father of the 1st petitioner herein). The 1st accused has also agreed to advance loan amount of Rs.8.5 lakhs to the defacto-complainant and asked the defactocomplainant to give the original documents of the property belonging to the defacto-complainant as security. As per the agreement between the defactocomplainant and the 1st accused, a sum of Rs.

8.5 lakhs was received by the defacto-complainant from the 1st accused. But, subsequently, the accused persons colluded with each other and transferred the property in favour of the third party. When the defacto-complainant questioned the same, the 1st accused along with the petitioners and other co-accused threatened the defacto-complainant. Hence, the present complaint has been filed as against the accused persons.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that it is only a false case foisted against the petitioners/accused and they are no way

connected with the alleged offences. Further, the main allegation is only as against the 1st accused, who is the father of the 1st petitioner herein. It is further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the civil suit is also pending between the parties and the matter is purely civil in nature. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon a judgment reported in (1994) 4 SCC 260 [Joginder Kumar Vs. State of U.P. And others] in support of his contention that custodial interrogation is not necessary in the case of this nature. Thus, the learned counsel for the petitioners sought for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.

Side) has vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners stating that the petitioners along with the 1st accused and other co-accused obtained the original title deeds and power of attorney from various persons under the guise of advancing loan amount. Later, with the help of the Power of Attorney, they executed sale deed in favour of third parties. The petitioners/accused are politically influenced persons and fearing of them, only after the 1st accused was arrested in connection with some other case, the defacto-complainant and others have come forward to lodge the complaints. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would also submit that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary and if the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, it would hamper the investigation, which is at initial stage.

Thus, he sought of dismissal of the petition.

5.Keeping submissions made on either side, I have carefully gone through the entire CD file produced by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), I find that in the statement given by the victim, the name of the petitioners have also been referred, stating that they came along with the other accused persons and threatened the defacto-complainant. Further, it is the main allegation that the petitioner along with 1st accused and other co-accused obtained power of attorney in their favour under the guise of advancing loan to the victims and thereafter, with the power of attorney, they executed sale deeds. Considering the nature of the offences, I am of the opinion that this a case where custodial interrogation of the petitioners is necessary for effective investigation.

In this regard, a reference could be placed in the judgment relied upon by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) reported in (2012) 9 SCC 235 (Maruti Nivrutti Navele Vs. State of Maharashtra), wherein it has been held as follows_ "As observed above, all the three counsel appearing for the parties took us through MoUs, lease deed and other correspondence/communications with the educational authorities as well as the report of the Deputy Collector, Pune, to the Senior Police Inspector, Bundgarden Police Station, Pune. It is also relevant to point out that all these materials were scrutinised/analaysed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune and the High Court while considering the application for anticipatory bail. It is true that the parties have also approached the civil Court for various reliefs.

relating to corrections/additions/alterations made in various documents, information furnished to the educational authorities which, according to them, are incorrect, we are of the view that in order to bring out all the material information and documents, custodial interrogation is required, more particularly, to ascertain in respect of the documents which were alleged to have been forged and fabricated. In the said documents and other materials which are in the possession of the appellant and the allegation against him that he has made false representation before the public authority on the basis of those documents for obtaining necessary permission, as pointed out by the State, in order to secure possession of those documents, custodial interrogation is necessary. For this reason, the Additional Sessions judge and High Court rejected the claim for anticipatory bail.

.......

In the light of the above discussion and in view of the mandate prescribed in Section 438 of the Code, we fully agree with the conclusion arrived at by the Additional Sessions Judge and the High Court in rejecting the relief of anticipatory bail. Consequently, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.

In view of our order dismissing the appeal, the interim protection granted by this Court on 23.09.2011 shall stand vacated and the appellant is granted two weeks' time from today to surrender and seek regular bail. It is also made clear that the conclusion arrived at by the Courts below including the present order relates only to eligibility or otherwise of the relief of anticipatory bail and the trial Court is free to decide the bail application dehors the above

observation and in accordance with law."

The above said dictum squarely applies to the present facts of the case. 6.In the light of the above said Judgment, this Court is of the view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is necessary in this case in order to unearth the real facts. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

In fine, the criminal original petition is dismissed. 18.06.2015 ssv R.SUBBIAH, J.

ssv Pre-delivery order in Crl.O.P.No.12998 of 2015 18.06.2015