Vijayalakshmi v. The State Rep By Its,
T.V.THAMILSELVI,J.
The petitioner, who apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 406, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 120B IPC in Cr.No.231 of 2022, seeks anticipatory bail.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant lodged a complaint stating that one Nandhagopal, a land broker had introduced one Srinivasa Rao and his wife one Vijayalakshmi as the owners of the property measuring 18,674 sq.ft in old survey No.81/1 and new survey No.453/33, 453/35, 453/36, 453/37 and induced the defacto complainant to purchase the said property for a sale consideration of Rs.7,20,00,000/-. Therefore, an amount of Rs.2,75,00,000/- was paid by the defacto complainant towards sale consideration. However, the said Srinivasa Rao demanded another sum of Rs.50,00,000/- and refused to produce the title deeds for the aforesaid property. Hence, the case. 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 it is a case of civil nature which has been converted into a criminal case and suit for specific performance has to be filed by the defacto complainant and that there is no material available to give the criminal complaint. Hence prays for grant of anticipatory bail. 4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that the petitioner along with other accused have received an amount of Rs.2,75,00,000/- towards sale consideration of the subject property from the defacto complainant, however refused to produce the title deeds. He would further submit that the case is under investigation. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
5. Mr.M.Dhamodharakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant/Intervenor would submit that the petitioner along with other accused have induced the defacto complainant to purchase the said property for a sale consideration of Rs.7,20,00,000/-. Therefore, an amount of Rs.2,75,00,000/- was paid by the defacto complainant towards
sale consideration. However, one Srinivasa Rao demanded another sum of Rs.50,00,000/- and refused to produce the title deeds for the subject property. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
6. Taking into account that the case is under investigation and that huge amount has been involved in this case, which needs a detailed investigation, this court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 07.12.2022 anu
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.
anu 07.12.2022 (1/2)