Palpandi v. State Rep. By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Nineteenth day of November Two Thousand Twenty One PRESENT The Hon`ble Mrs Justice T.V.THAMILSELVI CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION Nos.21662 AND 21282 of 2021 PALPANDI [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED CRL.OP.NO.21662/2021] B.MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED CRL.OP.NO.21282/2021] Vs STATE REP. BY [ RESPONDENT THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, IN BOTH PETITIONS] CENTRAL CRIME BRANCH, CHENNAI.

(CRIME NO. 119 OF 2021) For Petitioner : M/S. J. BREZHNEV Advocate (INCRL.OP.NO.21662/2021) : M/S.S.SURESH Advocate (INCRL.OP.NO.21282/2021) For Respondent : MR.N.S.SUGANTHAN, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) (IN BOTH PETITIONS) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 465, 467, 468, 471 r/w Section 34 and 109 of IPC, in Crime No.119 of 2021, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is the original owner of the property and she had purchased the property from one Mohan Mathyu in the year 1990. While so, A1 had impersonated the defacto complainant and executed two power of attorney in favour of A2 and A3 in the year 2019 in respect of S.Nos.191 and 192. When the power of attorney is in subsistence, A1 had executed a sale deed in favour of A5 in the year 2020. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Thereafter, A5 had mortgaged the property in the Punjab National Bank. Further, the petitioners along with other accused persons had intentionally grabbed the property belonging to the defacto complainant. Hence, the complaint.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have nothing to do with the alleged offence and he has been falsely implicated in this case.

4. The learned Government Advocate submitted that the main accused is absconding and the investigation is still pending. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. Considering the above fact and circumstances of the case and the nature of allegations against the petitioners at initial stage of investigation, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

6. Accordingly, these Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. -sd/- 19/11/2021 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, CHENNAI.

2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

CC to M/S. R.VENKATESAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL.OP.NOs.21662 AND 21282/2021 Date :19/11/2021 CSK 30/11/2021 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/