Shanthi v. State Rep By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 04.01.2021

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN Crl.O.P.No.19803 of 2020 D.Shanthi

...Petitioner

Vs.

The State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Mandharakuppam Police Station, Cuddalore District.

Crime No.690 of 2020

...Respondent

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code, praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of arrest in Crime No. 690 of 2020 pending investigation on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner : Mr.Om Sai Ram For Respondent : Mr.S.Karthikeyan Additional Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

(The case has been heard through video conference) The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences under Sections 294(b), 353, 332, 420, 465, 467 and 506(ii) of IPC in Crime No.690 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution as per the de-facto complainant is that he is a owner of property, the petitioner along with other accused are alleged to have created the forged documents as if the respondent police issued a non traceable certificate stating that they could not trace the original property documents and attempted to sell the property. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and she has been falsely implicated in this case. He would submit that the petitioner is a lady and she does not aware of the occurrence and she is innocent. He would submit that the co-accused A3 and A6 in this case have been granted anticipatory bail. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that there are totally six accused in this case and the petitioner is A4. He would submit that the petitioner is the owner of the property and she along with other accused

deliberately created a forged certificate and sold the land to A5. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and also the submissions made by the learned counsels and also the fact that the petitioner is a lady and the alleged forgery is said to have committed by other accused and the co-accused were already granted anticipatory bail, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions:

a) Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, in the event of arrest or on her appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Neyveli, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that: [b] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity. [c] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation.

[d] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

[e] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

[f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560]. [g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.

6. With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition is ordered.

-sd/- 04/01/2021 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 DISTRICT MUNSIF CUM JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, NEYVELI 2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE CUDDALORE(FOR INFORMATION) 3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

4 INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANDHARAKUPPAM POLICE STATION, CUDDALORE DISTRICT.

CC to M/S OM SAI RAM Advocate on payment of necessary charges Sr.54 CRL OP.19803/2020 Date :04/01/2021 RVR 18/01/2021