P.Anbarasan v. Inspector Of Police

RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J.

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offence punishable under Sections 419, 465, 467, 468, 471, 34 and 120(B) of IPC in Crime No.116 of 2023 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution as per the defacto complainant Sudha is that the petitioners along with other accused, created forged documents of the property belongs to the defacto complainant and by impersonation, executed a partition deed and also executed power of attorney. Hence the case.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the first petitioner is only a attesting witness to the documents and he was never received any amount from anyone. As far as the second petitioner is concerned, he is the power holder and he has not aware of the offence committed by the other accused. Hence, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate for the respondent Police would submit that the petitioners along with other accused, created forged documents of the property belongs to the defacto complainant and by impersonation, executed a partition deed and also executed power of attorney. Insofar as the 1st petitioner is concerned, he is the witness to the document namely partition deed. As far as the 2nd petitioner is concerned, he is the power holder. Hence, he prayed for grant of dismissal of the petition.

5.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and also considering the nature and gravity of the offence committed by the petitioners, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 10.08.2023 vkr

RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J.

vkr 10.08.2023