Venkateshwaran v. State Rep By
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Second day of November Two Thousand Twenty One PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice M.DHANDAPANI CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.20460 of 2021 IN CRL.M.P.No.11357 of 2021 1 VENKATESHWARAN [ PETITIONERS / ACCUSED ] 2 VIJAY Vs STATE REP BY [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CENTRAL CRIME BRANCH, ANTI-LAND GRABBING SPECIAL CELL II, TEAM 22, VEPERY, CHENNAI.
CR.NO.84 OF 2021.
AJAY PONMANY [PETITIONER/INTERVENER/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT] [ORDERED AS PER ORDER OF THIS COURT DATED 02/11/2021 IN CRL.MP.11357/2021 IN CRL.O.P.NO.20460/2021] For Petitioner : M/S. R.SASIKUMAR Advocate For Respondent : MR.A.GOPINATH, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) For Intervener : M/S.M.DEIVANANDAM, Advocate PETITION FOR BAIL 439 Cr.P.C.
ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners who were arrested on 27.08.2021 for the offence under Section 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 r/w. 34 of I.P.C., in Cr.No.84 of 2021 on the file of the respondent police, seek bail. 2.It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner along with the other accused are alleged to have impersonated as one Rajan Chacko/ owner of the disputed property, by creating false life certificate with false address and created a forged power of attorney and with the above said power of attorney executed sale deed in favour of A5 for a sale consideration of Rs.58,08,000/-. The defacto complainant is the power of attorney of the wife of the said Rajan Chacko. The petitioners are arrayed as A1 and A3. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and that A5 has already been granted bail by this Court on 08.10.2021 in Crl.O.P.No.18937 of 2021.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the intervenor would submit that it is true that A5 has already been granted bail by this Court, however, bail was granted to him on the ground that he was ready to cancel the sale deed, however, till date the sale deed was not cancelled and would further submit that the petitioners are main accused and if they are enlarged on bail, there is no possibility for cancellation of the sale deed.
5.Heard the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side).
6.Considering the nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioners and the fact that till date the alleged sale deed was not cancelled and the petitioners are main accused and if they are enlarged on bail, there is no possibility for cancellation of the sale deed, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners.
7.Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed. -sd/- 02/11/2021 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, ANTI LAND GRABBING SPECIAL CELL II, TEAM 22, VEPERY, CHENNAI.
2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.
3 THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, PUZHAL, CHENNAI.
CC to M/S. R.SASIKUMAR Advocate on payment of necessary charges +2 CC to M/S.M.DEIVANANDAM, Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.NO.12340 CRL OP.20460/2021 IN CRL.M.P.No.11357/2021 Date :02/11/2021 TA-18/11/2021 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/