B.Vinod Kumar v. Inspector Of Police
G.CHANDRASEKHARAN.
J.
The petitioner, B.Vinod Kumar, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence under Sections 420 & 406 IPC, in Crime No.447 of 2023, on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.
2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is falsely implicated in this case on the allegation that petitioner received a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- from the defacto complainant on the promise of selling the land. But, after receiving the amount, it turned out that the property alleged to have been offered for sale does not belong to the alleged owner one Veerasamy. Petitioner has not received any money from the defacto complainant. Apprehending arrest, this petition is filed.
3.In response, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that petitioner along with other accused cheated the defacto complainant and received a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- on the promise of
selling a land to an extent of 3600sq.ft. at Kathirvedu village. He further submitted that investigation in this case is pending. 4.Considered the rival submissions and perused the records. 5.It is seen from the FIR allegations that petitioner approached defacto complainant with an offer to buy a land measuring 3600sq.ft.belonging to one Veerasamy for half of the original price of Rs.30,00,000/-. Defacto complainant along with the petitioner visited the land in Kathirvedu village and willing to purchase the land. On 7.4.2015, he paid a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- in the presense of Mukundan and Prabakaran. On the same day, petitioner had taken defacto complainant to SRO Arakkonam and one Veerasamy excuted a general power of attorney deed. Thereafter, he paid another sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the petitioner. He was given the patta. On verification, it was informed by the Surveyor that patta is a forged document. When defacto complainant asked Veerasamy about this, he said that he did not own any land. He just signed at the instance of petitioner on the payment of
Rs;5,000/-. When the defacto complainant demanded money from the petitioner, petitioner said to have made death threat to the defacto complainant.
6.Considering the nature of the allegations made against the petitioner, the fact that police has not arrested even one single accused in this case and the amount said to have been given by the defacto complainant to petitioner is not recovered and the investigation in this case is not completed, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
7.Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed. 12.07.2023 sli
G.CHANDRASEKHARAN.
J.
sli 12.07.2023