P.Gopi v. State Rep.By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Seventh day of October Two Thousand Twenty One PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice M.DHANDAPANI CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.18624 of 2021 P.GOPI [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ] Vs STATE REP.BY [ RESPONDENT ] INSPECTOR OF POLICE, M-4, REDHILLS POLICE STATION, CHENNAI-600 052.

CR.NO.126 OF 2021.

For Petitioner : M/S.R.UDAYA KUMAR Advocate For Respondent : Mr.C.E.Pratap Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For Intervenor : M/S J.R.K.BHAVANANTHAM 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 406 and 420 of IPC in Crime No.126 of 2021 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is the real estate broker. The petitioner and the defacto complainant's husband executed a power of attorney for the purpose of getting prospective purchase, negotiation of sale of plot and fixing the sale price and handed over the original title deeds of the property to the petitioner. The defacto complainant's husband died on 09.03.2019 leaving his legal heirs viz., his wife, two daughters and two sons. After death of the defacto complainant's husband, the petitioner evaded the defacto complainant's visit to get the original sale deed of the property.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence as stated by the prosecution and he has been falsely implicated in this case. The defacto complainant's husband viz., Subramani entered into sale https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

consideration of Rs.7 Lakhs and obtained the general power of attorney dated 08.05.2018 vide document No.4260 of 2018. Without repaying the money, the defacto complainant claimed the original title deeds. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned counsel for intervenor has vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. The learned Government Advocate submitted that there is no proof to show that the petitioner has paid a sum of Rs.7 Lakhs to the defacto complainant's husband. The learned Government Advocate further submitted that investigation is still pending and hence, he objected to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. Considering the serious allegation levelled against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. -sd/- 07/10/2021 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 INSPECTOR OF POLICE, M-4, REDHILLS POLICE STATION, CHENNAI-600 052.

2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

CC to M/S.R.UDAYA KUMAR Advocate on payment of necessary charges CC to M/S.J.RK.BHAVANANTHAM Advocate on payment of necessary charges Sr.11161 CRL OP.18624/2021 Date :07/10/2021 RVR 15/11/2021 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/