R. Karuppiah v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Twenty Ninth day of August Two Thousand Sixteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice V.M.VELUMANI CRL OP(MD) No.12722 of 2016 R. KARUPPIAH ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.1 Vs STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE NAGAMALAI PUDUKOTTAI POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT.
(CRIME NO. 282/2013) ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S G.THIRUVARUTSELVAN Advocate For Respondent : M/S.P.KANNITHEVAN Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner, who is arrayed as accused No.1, apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 420, 506(i) of IPC, in Crime No.282 of 2013 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seeks anticipatory bail.
2.The case of the prosecution is that one Thangapandi lodged a complaint alleging that the first accused purchased three plots in the layout formed by the defacto complainant for a total sale consideration of Rs.9,00,000/- and by paying Rs.1,00,000/- towards advance, he got registration of the sale deed in respect of three plots. The further allegation is that the first accused is the close friend of the defacto complainant and believing his words, he executed the sale deed, subsequently, he did not pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.8,00,000/-. On same the pretext, he also got back the advance amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. When the defacto complainant went to the house of the accused on 12.05.2013, the accused 2 and 3 said to have threatened the defacto complainant. 3.
The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner did not purchase any property from the defacto complainant. On the other hand, one Ramaraj purchased the Plot Nos.11,12,13 from C.Deivendran, Muthupetchi, Rajesh and Rajaguru through Power of Attorney Sumathi wife of defacto complainant. The said Ramaraj paid entire sale consideration of Rs.4,50,000/-. Neither the owner nor the power of attorney has given any complaint. There is no truth in the allegation of the complaint with regard to pledging of jewels. He is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.
by the prosecution and prays for anticipatory bail in favour of the petitioner.
4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that earlier the petitioner filed an application for anticipatory bail in Crl.O.P(MD)No.12258 of 2013 and the same was dismissed by this Court on 06.08.2014 and now the petitioner is absconding and absconding charge-sheet is filed and not taken on file.
5.Considering the serious nature of allegations made against the petitioner and absconding charge-sheet is filed, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Hence, this petition is dismissed.
sd/- 29/08/2016 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE NAGAMALAI PUDUKOTTAI POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT. 2 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
+1. CC to M/S G.THIRUVARUTSELVAN Advocate SR.No. 48360 JA-GSV-PM-SAR.I/09.09.2016/2P:4C
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.12722 of 2016 Date :29/08/2016 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/