Prakash v. The State Rep By
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Twenty Fifth day of November Two Thousand Twenty One PRESENT The Hon`ble Mrs Justice T.V. THAMILSELVI CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.22316 of 2021 PRAKASH [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ] Vs THE STATE REP BY [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CENTRAL CRIME BRANCH, TEAM XXVI, ANTI LAND GRABBING SPECIAL CELL-II, VEPERY, CHENNAI-7 CRIME NO.70 OF 2020 For Petitioner : M/S.K.G. SENTHILKUMAR Advocate For Respondent : MR.N.S.SUGANTHAN, Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) PETITION FOR BAIL 439 Cr.P.C.
ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- (The case has been heard through video conference) The petitioner who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 14.09.2021 for the offences under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 34 r/w 120(B) of IPC, in Crime No.70 of 2020, on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that de facto complainant's father had purchased a property measuring to an extent of 4800 sq.ft situated at plot No.16, Ayanambakkam in her mother's name on 28.10.1985 from a GEASON Housing Society and they were far away due to their job nature and after the demise of her mother, the de facto complainant visited the site. At that point of time only, the defacto complainant came to understand that the plot was once again sold to A3 on 25.08.1993 by the same Society. Thereafter, from A3, A4 & A5 who are husband and wife have purchased the plot on 27.11.2015 for a sale
consideration of Rs.1,39,00,000/-. Thereafter, the said A4 and A5 have mortgaged the property with Punjab National Bank and obtained loan of Rs.70,00,000/-. Hence, the complaint.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the son of A3 and he has been falsely implicated in this case and that the petitioner has been suffering incarceration for about 60 days from 25.09.2021. He would further submit that his father/A3 himself has been impersonated and the only over-act attributed against the petitioner is that, the amount transferred to A3 was diverted to the petitioner's account. He would submit that the amount transferred to the petitioner's account was withdrawn and handed over to A1 and A2. Hence, he would pray for grant of bail to the petitioner.
4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would raise strong objection stating that the petitioner is arrayed as A10 and he is son of A3 who is still absconding and not co-operating for the investigation. He would further submit that the investigation has not been completed.
5.On seeing the nature of offence and that the father of the petitioner/A3 is still absconding, this Court is of the opinion that a detailed investigation is required in this case. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.
-sd/- 25/11/2021 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, TEAM XXVI, ANTI LAND GRABBING SPECIAL CELL-II, VEPERY, CHENNAI-7.
2 THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, PUZHAL.
3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.
CC to M/S.K.G. SENTHILKUMAR Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.22316/2021 Date :25/11/2021 JPA 03/12/2021