I.Mohamed Ghouse v. The Inspector Of Police,
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Eleventh day of January Two Thousand Seventeen PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice V.M.VELUMANI CRL OP(MD) No.17745 of 2016 1 I.MOHAMED GHOUSE 2 M.ZAHIR HUSSAIN 3 M.MOHAMED RAFI 4 Y.SHEIK HUSSAIN ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.10,11,12&13 Vs STATE REP.BY , THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT CRIME NO. 39 OF 2014 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT M/S.SWELECT ENERGY SYSTEMS LIMITED, (FORMERLY KNOWN AS "NUMERIC POWER SYSTEMS LIMITED") REP.BY ITS LEGAL MANAGER MR.K.KARTHIKEYAN, 'NUMERIC HOUSE', NO.5, SIR P.S.SIVASAMY SALAI, MYLAPORE, CHENNAI - 600 004. PETITIONER/INTEVENER/ DEFACTO COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.M.SHEIK ABDULLAH Advocate For Respondent : MR.P.KANNITHEVAN, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) For Intervenor : M/S.A.
MADHUMATHI, Advocate PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners, who are arrayed as Accused Nos.10 to 13, apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420 and r/w. Section 120(b) I.P.C., in Crime No.39 of 2014 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the de-facto complainant is engaged in the business of Manufacturing and Installation of Solar Project in India particularly, in the State of Tamil Nadu. To extend their business, they wanted to purchase the property in Sivagangai District, for constructing solar power energy industries and they made arrangement to conduct full survey and installation of land and other neighbouring Districts. In the month of August 2011, the petitioners came to the Office of the de-facto complainant and introduced themselves as leading Real Estate business people in Sivagangai District and they are having 200 acres of land without any encumbrances. The de-facto complainant went along with their Manager and inspected the land.
A1 and A2 had shown 200 acres of vacant land in Santhankulam Village and they have title deeds, patta and encumbrance certificates for the land. After verification, the de-facto complainant purchased 133.85 acres of land and paid total sale consideration of Rs.2,26,20,650/-. After purchase, they applied for patta, the Deputy Tahsildar issued patta only for S.Nos.13/25, 13/26, 13/31, 13/32 and 13/33 and for remaining land, the patta was not issued and informed that other properties are belonged to third parties.
On verification, the de-facto complainant came to know that there is no revenue village by name Santhankulam in Sivagangai District and by forging the documents in collusion with the Sub-Registrar, Joint-II, Sivagangai, the petitioners forged the encumbrance certificate and created entries with the help of A3/Sub-Registrar and created entries as though A4 and A6 purchased the land on 18.04.2011 and subsequently, sold the property on 14.11.2011 to A2. The property belongs to one M/s.Maxworth Orchards (India) Limited, Kodambakkam, Chennai, and they have purchased the same in the year 1992 to 1996. The petitioners and other accused persons colluded together and created forged documents and allegedly sold to de-facto complainant in northern extent of revenue village. On complaint, a case has been registered against the petitioners.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and their names have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioners have purchased 45.90 acres from A4 to A6 on 18.04.2011 for agricultural purpose. They found that the land was not suitable for agricultural purpose and therefore, they sold the property by sale deed dated 14.11.2011, within 7 months to A2. A2 sold the property on 23.11.2011, within 9 days from the date of purchase. He further contended that the petitioners purchased the property after verification of documents and encumbrance certificates for 27 years from 01.01.1987 to 31.07.2014. He also submitted that A7 and the second petitioner/A11 were already arrested on 21.12.2016 and 27.12.2016 in Crime No.39 of 2014 and released on bail by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sivagangai, in Crl.M.P.Nos.5524 and 5606 of 2016, dated 23.12.2016 and 29.12.2016, respectively.
4. The learned counsel for the Intervenor reiterated the averments and submitted that the petitioners with an intention to cheat the de-facto complainant colluded with the Sub-Registrar,
Joint-II, Sivagangai, and made huge loss to them. He further submitted that the Sub-Registrar Joint-II, had actively engaged in aiding the revenue information's and helped the accused to prepare forged sale deeds and prayed for dismissal of this petition.
5. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) submitted that the petitioners and others colluded together and with the help of A3 / Sub-Registrar created fabricated documents and encumbrance certificates and received a sum of Rs.2,26,20,650/- from the defacto complainant and thereby, cheated him. He further submitted that already this Court, vide order dated 18.08.2016, dismissed Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14896 of 2016 filed by the petitioners.
6. I have considered the rival submissions.
7. Considering the fact that the second petitioner/A11 was already arrested on 21.12.2016 and released on bail, vide order dated 23.12.2016, made in Crl.M.P.No.5524 of 2016, by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sivagangai, this petition is dismissed as against the second petitioner/A11.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that co-accused were already arrested and released on bail, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners 1, 3 and 4, with certain conditions. Accordingly, they are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sivagangai, on condition that each of them 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 to the Police Officer, who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that:
(i) the petitioners 1, 3 and 4 shall report before the respondent Police daily at 10.00 a.m. and 05.00 p.m. until further orders;
(ii) the petitioners 1, 3 and 4 shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;
(iii) the petitioners 1, 3 and 4 shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;
(iv) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners 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].
9. The Inspector of Police concerned is directed to send a compliance report to the office of the learned Government Advocate, as to whether the petitioners 1, 3, and 4 are complying with the conditions or not.
sd/- 11/01/2017 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.II,SIVAGANGAI. 2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, SIVAGANGAI. 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT 4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECTUOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
+2. CC's to M/S.M.SHEIK ABDULLAH Advocate SR.No.2372 +1. CC to M/S.A.MADHUMATHI Advocate SR.No.2385 SMN2 CSL/SS-3/SAR-I/20.01.2017 : 4P/8C
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.17745 of 2016 Date :11/01/2017