R Stanley Ravi v. State Rep By

Crl.O.P.No.18450 of 2024 T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 24.06.2024, in Crime No.32 of 2008 on the file of the respondent police, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 406, 465, 466, 468, 471, 420 r/w 34 IPC, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution as per the defacto complainant, that she is the absolute owner of the property situated at No.37, Ellaiamman Nagar, 2nd Street, Korattur, Chennai - 600 076. Due to her financial difficulties, the defacto complainant decided to sell the property for a valuable consideration of Rs.11 lakhs. The petitioner showed his intent to purchase the property and entered into an agreement on 01.02.2005, for which, he paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as advance and also Rs.75,000/-. It is further alleged that the petitioner insisted the defacto complainant hand over the original documents for obtaining legal opinion, for which, the defacto complainant handed over the same. After obtaining the original documents, the petitioner has created forged documents as if they were executed by the defacto complainant claiming they had taken possession for the loan amount of Rs.9,88,048/-, which fell due. Hence, the complaint.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case, as the petitioner cheated the defacto complainant by creating the forged documents to purchase the property. He further submitted that the petitioner is in no way connected with the alleged offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that the petitioner is suffering incarceration from 24.06.2024 and he is ready to abide any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays for grant of bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police submitted that the petitioner has cheated the defacto complainant's property by creating forged documents. Now the defacto complainant has expired and there are two legal heirs. He further submitted that the property was not yet recovered. Now the case is pending for examination of PW1 to PW8 and none of the witnesses were cross examined by the accused. He further submitted that the petitioner was absconding for the past 8 years by changing his address. However, he vehemently opposed for the grant of bail to the petitioner.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the submission made by the learned counsel of either side, long period of absconding of the accused and also considering the nature of offence, if he released on bail, he will abscond, hence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 01.08.2024 drl

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

drl Crl.O.P.No.18450 of 2024 01.08.2024