B.Jayakumar v. State Rep By
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Ninth day of November Two Thousand Twenty One PRESENT The Hon`ble Mrs Justice T.V. THAMILSELVI CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.20879 of 2021 B.JAYAKUMAR [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ] Vs STATE REP BY [ RESPONDENT ] INSPECTOR OF POLICE, C4-RATHINAPURI POLICE STATION, COIMBATORE DISTRICT (CRIME NO.527/2021) For Petitioner : M/S G.RAJESH Advocate For Respondent : MR. N.S.SUGANTHAN, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner, who apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Section 465, 467, 468 of IPC in Cr.No.527 of 2021 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant's son borrowed an amount of Rs.
30,000/- from the petitioner and from other accused persons for which her son handed over the original documents of their property and mortgaged the said property. Even though, the defacto complainant returned back the entire loan amount with interest after the death of her son, the petitioner and other accused persons refused to return back the original documents and later on, the defacto complainant came to know that the petitioner along with other accused persons have impersonated the property and sold it to other accused persons. Hence, the defacto complainant lodged a complaint against the petitioner.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that accused/A-1 sold the property of the defacto complainant to accused/A-2 and thereafter, sold it to accused/A-5 and A-6 and submits that he was not involved in the sale proceedings https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
however, the petitioner is willing to abide any condition as imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that after the death of the defacto complainant's son, the petitioner along with other accused persons have alleged to have impersonated and created forged documents as if the defacto complainant's son was alive and sold it to the other accused persons and further submitted that the investigation is pending in this case. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
5. Considering the gravity of offence committed by the petitioner and that the investigation is not yet completed, this court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition seeking anticipatory bail is dismissed. -sd/- 09/11/2021 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 INSPECTOR OF POLICE, C4-RATHINAPURI POLICE STATION, COIMBATORE DISTRICT 2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.
CC to M/S G.RAJESH Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.20879/2021 Date :09/11/2021 RVR 18/11/2021 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/