Sivaraman, 3rd Accused v. State Rep. By Its
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 28.10.2024
CORAM
The Hon`ble Mr.Justice P.DHANABAL CRL OP.No.25711 of 2024 Sivaraman S/o.Kaliyaperumal ... Petitioner /3rd Accused Vs State represented by:- The Station House Officer, Town Police Station, Karaikal through: The Public Prosecutor, Karaikal.
[Cr . No.169 of 2024] .... Respondent / Complainant PRAYER: - The Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., praying to grant bail to the petitioner/Accused in Cr . No.169 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner : Dr. G. Babu For Respondent : Mr. K.S. Mohandas, Public Prosecutor - Puducherry.
Assisted by Mrs. N. Dhanalatchumy
ORDER
The petitioner / 3rd Accused, who was arrested and remanded to 1/7
judicial custody on 07.09.2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471, 473 read with 34 of IPC in Cr. No.169 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police seeks bail.
2. The Deputy Collector (Revenue)-cum-Sub Division Magistrate, Karaikal lodged a complaint stating that between 09.01.2023 and 25.02.2024, some unknown persons, in furtherance of common intention, have fraudulently fabricated the documents affixed with the forged signature of the defacto complainant with Government official seal projecting that the vast extent of land belongs to Sri Paarvadheeswarar Swamy Devasthanam near JIPMER Hospital, Karaikal has been converted into the house sites by the Government itself and the housing plots are being assigned to the general public on market value and the documents were shared by online in social media and huge amount from the general public are being collected and to prevent the general public being cheated, the defacto complainant has requested for necessary legal action against the culprits. Thus, the respondent police have registered the present case and the investigation reveals that the petitioner herein has allegedly enticed several persons in Karaikal by showing the forged 2/7
and fabricated documents and collected huge amount. Hence the case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that this petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case for the offences under Sections 420, 468, 471, 473 read with 34 of IPC and this petitioner is arrayed as A3 among 5 accused and this petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 07.09.2024. There is no specific overt act attributed as against this petitioner and he is not a named accused in this case. He had only acted as broker and he is no way connected with the alleged offences. There is no previous case pending against this petitione and hence, he prayed that the petitioner may be released on bail.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that this petitioner along with others had indulged in creating forged documents and swindled the temple property and investigation is at initial stage. So many properties were grabbed by this petitioner and other accused and hence he strongly opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.
3/7
5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
6. Considering the rival submissions on either side, considering the fact that already the prime accused were arrested and this petitioner had only acted as broker and there is no previous case pending against this petitioner and also this petitioner is in judicial custody from 07.09.2024 and even as per the prosecution, the alleged offences are borne out of the records, thereby, there is no scope for tampering the evidence, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:
[a] Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on condition to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Karaikal and on further conditions that:
[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police 4/7
daily at 10.00 a.m. until further orders.
[c] the petitioner shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, or of the commission of which he is suspected;
[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;
[e] the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; [f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned 5/7
Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560]. [g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.
28.10.2024 index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking order mjs P.DHANABAL ,J mjs To 1.The Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Karaikal 2.The Public Prosecutor, Puducherry.
3. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai. 4.The Station House Officer, Town Police Station, Karaikal.
5. The Superintendent of Police, Central Prison, Karaikal, Puducherry. 6/7
CRL.O.P. No.25711 of 2024 21.10.2024 7/7