Ambika v. The State By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Fifteenth day of September Two Thousand Twenty One PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice M.DHANDAPANI CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.16574 of 2021 AMBIKA [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ] Vs THE STATE BY [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, V-1, VILLIVAKKAM POLICE STATION, CHENNAI.

CR.NO.105/2021.

For Petitioner : M/S.I.C.VASUDEVAN Advocate For Respondent : M/S. A.GOPINATH, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR BAIL 439 Cr.P.C.

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner, who was arrested on 04.08.2021 and remanded to judicial custody for the offences punishable under Sections 380, 448, 506(I) IPC @ Sec. 380, 448, 506(i), 120(B) IPC and Sec.4 of Women Harassment Act, in Cr.No.105 of 2021 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant's mother is the original owner of the property. After the death of her mother, her father was taken to London. Since he insisted for living at Chennai, aged about 78 years, was left at the disputed premises. Further, the defacto complainant's father married with A1 by way of registration and further the defacto complainant had appointed the petitioner as caretaker of her father. After demise of her father, the petitioner along with other accused persons have created some fabricated documents and also looted the money and jewels available in the house. After expiry of the father, when the defacto complainant came from London to attend his father's last rites, the petitioner along other accused persons had demanded a sum of Rs.1 Crore from the defacto complainant for vacating the property. Immediately, the defacto complainant lodged a complaint before the respondent police,

however, the case has not been registered against the petitioner along with other accused persons. Thereby, the defacto complainant had filed a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C before this Court in Crl.O.P.No.10691 of 2021, seeking a direction to vacate the encroachment made by the accused persons, however the valuable jewels were also not been recovered. Hence, the law enforcing agency registered a case against the petitioner along with other accused persons.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is no way connected with the alleged offence and she has been falsely implicated in this case and the petitioner has been in jail from 04.08.2021. Therefore, he prays to grant bail to the petitioner.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent submitted that the petitioner along with the other persons created some forged documents and demanded a sum of Rs.1 Crore from the defacto complainant and also swindled the valuables from the property, the valuables were also not recovered from the accused persons and the investigation is at initial stage. Hence, he vehemently opposed for grant of bail to the petitioner. 5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the petitioner has involved in very serious offence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. -sd/- 15/09/2021 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, V-1, VILLIVAKKAM POLICE STATION, CHENNAI.

2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

3 THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, PUZHAL, CHENNAI CC to M/S.I.C.VASUDEVAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.16574/2021 Date :15/09/2021 APN 01/10/2021