K.Ulaganathan v. The State Rep. By

Crl.O.P.No.28056 of 2024 P.DHANABAL, J.

The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offences under Section 419, 420, 465, 466, 467, 486, 471 of IPC, 1860 in Crime No.176 of 2023, on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail. 2.

The case of the prosecution is that in the year 2012, the petitioner, being a land broker, introduced one Pradeep Pandurangan to the defacto complainant as the owner of the property in "Associate Avenue" Survey No. 9/1, N.23, Venkatamangalam Village Chengalpattu, Kanchipuram District and subsequently, executed sale of the said property vide Doc.No. 4671 of 2012 in the office of SRO, Guduvancherry, in which the petitioner signed as witness. Thereafter, during the year 2020, a person named Pradeep Pandurangan from America, called the defacto complainant and stated that some unknown person, using forged documents, sold his property and hence the sale deed No. 4671 of 2012 is to be cancelled. Therefore, it came to know that the petitioner along with other accused colluded with each other, impersonated the original owner Pradeep Pandurangan, executed the sale with forged documents and cheated the defacto complainant. Hence, the complaint.

1/5

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any such offence as alleged by the prosecution. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. However, on instructions, the learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4.

The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police submitted that the petitioner along with other accused, impersonated the original owner Pradeep Pandurangan, executed the sale with forged documents and cheated the defacto complainant and he further submitted that there is no previous case pending against the petitioner. However, he opposed to grant bail to the petitioner. 5.

Considering the representations made by both sides and considering the nature of offences charged against the petitioner, alleged occurrence took place in the year 2012 and complaint was lodged only in the year 2023, even according to the prosecution, the petitioner is only an introducer and obtained commission from the defacto complainant and no 2/5

previous case is pending against the petitioner and considering other aspects, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

6.

Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his/her appearance, within a period of fifteen

(15) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order before the District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Thiruporur on condition that the petitioner shall 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 respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that:

[a] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 A.M. until further orders. [b] 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 of the Court or to any police officer.

3/5

[c] the petitioner shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.

[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

[e] the petitioner shall make himself/herself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required. [f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned 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 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 petitioner thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.

13.11.2024 nsl P.DHANABAL, J.

4/5

nsl 13.11.2024 5/5