T. Sankaralingam v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :15.06.2016

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI Crl.O.P.(MD).No.17463 of 2015 T.Sankaralingam ... Petitioner Vs.

1.State Rep. By The Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch, Tiruchirappalli City, Tiruchirappalli District, (Crime No.14 of 2015).

2.Jabar Singh 3.Vasanthi Devi 4.Utham Kumar @ Utham Singh 5.Suresh Singh @ Suresh Kumar ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 439(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records and set aside the order, dated 31.08.2015, passed in Cr.M.P.No.2355 of 2015, on the file of the Learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli, Tiruchirappalli District and Cancel the Anticipatory Bail granted in favour of the Respondents 2 to 5.

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar For R1 : Mr.K.Anbarasan Govt.Advocate For R2 to R5 : Mr.M.Suri

O R D E R

This petition has been filed to call for the records and set aside the order, dated 31.08.2015, passed in Cr.M.P.No.2355 of 2015, by the Learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli, Tiruchirappalli District and Cancel the Anticipatory Bail granted in favour of the Respondents 2 to 5.

2.The respondents 2 to 5, who are the accused Nos.6 to 9, charged for the offences under Sections 294(b), 506(i), 417, 420, 465, 466, 471 and 120(b) of IPC. The learned Principal Sessions Court, Tiruchirappalli granted anticipatory bail to the respondents 2 to 5 on the ground that the respondents 2 to 5 are the bonafide purchasers of the properties. The defacto complainant https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

in the capacity of power of attorney agent executed a registered sale deed and purchased some portion of the property. Now the petitioner has come out with the present petition on the ground that the learned Principal Sessions Judge misread the conspiracy. There are specific accusations against respondents 2 to 5 that they conspired with the main accused. The respondents 2 to 5 well aware of the previous transaction between the parties and they are not strangers.

3.The learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 5 submitted that no ground has been made out for cancellation of bail. Before granting anticipatory bail, the petitioner entered appearance and the learned Judge considered the submission of the petitioner and granted anticipatory bail to the respondents 2 to 5. 4.The learned Government Advocate(Crl.side) submitted that the respondents 2 to 5 are complying the condition regularly. 5.Considering the fact that already this Court by the order, dated 30.11.2015 granted anticipatory bail to A1 to A5 in Crl.O.P (MD)No.17119 of 2015 and the contention that already anticipatory bail was given to A6 to A9 after hearing the counsel for the intervenor, the petition for cancellation of bail is devoid of merits. Hence, this petition is dismissed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(AS) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli, Tiruchirappalli District.

2. The Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch, Tiruchirappalli City, Tiruchirappalli District 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

+1cc to MR.A.Thiruvadikumar, Advocate SR.No.30680 +1cc to Mr.M.Suri Advocate SR.No.30685 sm:SKS-RR:13.7.2016:2P/6C Crl.O.P.(MD).No.17463 of 2015 15.06.2016 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/