Janaki v. The State Rep By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Thirtieth day of September Two Thousand Twenty One PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice M.DHANDAPANI CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.18202 of 2021 JANAKI [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ] Vs THE STATE REP BY [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CENTRAL CRIME BRANCH-2, ALGSC-II, TEAM-26, CHENNAI For Petitioner : M/S.C.GANESH PANDIAN Advocate For Respondent : M/S. C.E.PRATAP, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) For Intervenor : M/S.RAJALAKSHMI Advocate PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and r/w 34 of I.P.C. in Cr.No.10 of 2021 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail. 2.

The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is the original owner of the property. A1 without the knowledge of the defacto complainant, set up A2 as impersonator and purchased the property from A2. Thereafter, A1 executed sale deed in favour of A3 who in turn executed sale deed in favour of A4. Hence the complaint. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that the petitioner is a senior citizen and she is the bonafide purchaser and she purchased the property from A2.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4.The learned counsel appearing for the intervenor submitted that the defacto complainant is the owner of the property and she purchased the property in the year 1987 from the original owner. She further submitted that A1 and A2 colluded together and created fake document and tried to alienate the property. She further submitted that the defacto complainant is in possession of the property and vehemently opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 5.The learned Government Advocate submitted that investigation is pending.

6.Considering the gravity of the offence committed by the petitioner and since in the recent times these types of crimes have increased due to the increase in the value of the land, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 7.This criminal original petition is accordingly dismissed. -sd/- 30/09/2021 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, CENTRAL CRIME BRANCH-2, ALGSC-II, TEAM-26, CHENNAI 2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

CC to M/S.C.GANESH PANDIAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.18202/2021 Date :30/09/2021 APN 12/10/2021 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/