Murugan v. State Rep. By

P.DHANABAL,J.

The petitioner apprehend arrest for the alleged offences under Sections 419, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 420 of I.P.C in Crime No.28 of 2024, on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner/A1 impersonated himself as the owner the subject property and executed power of attorney in favour of A2. By virtue of the said power of attorney A2 executed a sale deed in favour of A3 and A4 before the SRO, Ambattur vide Document No.14766 of 2022. Thereafter, A3 and A4 mortgaged the sale deed in Axis Bank, Kodambakkam Branch to a tune of Rs.80 lakhs. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner is an innocent and a false case has been foisted against him. He would further submit that the petitioner is no way connected with the said occurrence.

1/3

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submits that the petitioner created bogus documents and sold the land belonging to the defacto complainant. He further submitted that investigation is not yet completed. Hence, he opposed to grant bail to the petitioner. 5.Heard both side and perused the materials available on record. 6.Considering the gravity of offence and the investigation is at initial stage the matter requires further investigation. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.

18.09.2024 smn 2/3

P.DHANABAL,J smn 18.09.2024 2/2 3/3