S. Pellarmin v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Eighteenth day of August Two Thousand Sixteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice V.M.VELUMANI CRL OP(MD) No.14596 of 2016 S. PELLARMIN ... PETITIONER/SOLE ACCUSED Vs STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, THOOTHUKUDI (CRIME NO.40 OF 2016) ... RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.P.BANUPRASATH Advocate For Respondent : M/S.P.KANNITHEVAN, Government Advocate ( Crl. Side) For Intervenor : M/S.C.DHANASEELAN, Advocate 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 an alleged offence punishable under Sections 420 of IPC in Crime No.40 of 2016, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on promising to sell the property the petitioner received a sum of Rs.8,50,000/- from the defacto complainant and executed a power of attorney appointing the defacto complainant as his agent to deal with the property and handed over the possession and subsequently, the petitioner cancelled the power of attorney and settled in favour of his son viz., Agastin and cheated the defacto complainant. On complaint, case has been registered for the above said offences.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and his name has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that he has not received any amount as alleged by the defacto complainant and the witnesses gave statement before the respondent police that the petitioner did not receive any amount. The alleged receipt produced by the defacto complainant is forged.

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

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that on promising to sell the property the petitioner received a sum of Rs.8,50,000/- and executed the deed of power of attorney appointing defacto complainant and handed over possession of the property and subsequently, cancelled the power of attorney and executed the settlement deed in favour of his son and the investigation of the case is pending.

5. Considering the serious nature of allegations levelled against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

sd/- 18/08/2016 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, THOOTHUKUDI 2.THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI +1. CC to M/S.P.BANUPRASATH Advocate SR.No.45554 +One cc to M/S.C.DHANASEELAN, Advocate, SR.No.45425 RL/5C/2P/GSV/PM/SAR3/9/9/2016

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.14596 of 2016 Date :18/08/2016 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/