Dhanraj v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Twelfth day of March Two Thousand Fifteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice P.N.PRAKASH CRL OP(MD) No.3931 of 2015 DHANRAJ ... PETITIONER / ACCUSED NO.3 Vs THE STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE KODAIKANAL POLICE STATION, CR. NO.88/2015.

... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.N.RANJIT Advocate NO APPEARANCE For Respondent : MR.A.P.BALASUBRAMANIAN, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 417 and 467 I.P.C. in Crime No. 88 of 2015 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. It is the case of the defacto complainant that the property measuring about 80cents in S.No.652/2 covered by Patta No.1012 is their ancestral property in which he and his family members were routinely carrying on agricultural operations. When the defacto complainant wanted to take agricultural loan, he applied for encumbrance certificate and he learned that the property belonging to him has been sold by one Velu @Mottaiyan, S/o Palanichamy to Dhanraj, petitioner herein, without any title or right. The defacto complainant lodged the complaint to the police and during the enquiry, the petitioner came to the police station and undertook to cancel the sale deed. Thereafter, he went back on his words. Hence, the present case has been registered.

3. When the anticipatory bail application was heard by this Court on 06.03.2015, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is ready to cancel the sale deed and hand over the property to the defacto complainant. Therefore, this Court directed the petitioner to file an undertaking affidavit before this Court and adjourned the case on 10.03.2015 "for orders".

4. On 10.03.2015, there was no representation for the petitioner and therefore, the case was adjourned to today finally "for orders". Today also, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner.

5. In view of the serious nature of allegations against the petitioner, this Court is of the view that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

6. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. sd/- 12/03/2015 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO

1. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE KODAIKANAL POLICE STATION, CR. NO.88/2015.

2 THE ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.3931 of 2015 Date :12/03/2015 rg.17.03.2015 2p.3c.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/