Ravi, S/O.Rengasamy, v. The Inspector Of Police,
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Thirtieth day of June Two Thousand Seventeen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mrs.Justice J.NISHA BANU CRL OP(MD) Nos.22780,22796 and 23549 of 2016 RAVI ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.I IN CRL OP(MD)NO.22780 OF 2016 1 MURUGANANTHAM 2 VANCHILINGAM (AMENDED AS PER ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE COURT ORDER DATED 22.12.2016 AND MADE IN CRL MP(MD)NO.12599 OF 2017 IN CRL OP(MD)NO.22796 OF 2017) ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO. 2 & 3 IN CRL OP(MD)NO.22796 OF 2016 S.E.VASUDEVAN ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.5 IN CRL OP(MD)NO.23549 OF 2016 Vs STATE REP.BY, THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ANTI LAND GRABBING CELL, THANJAVUR DISTRICT.
CRIME NO.30 OF 2016 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT IN ALL THE PETITIONS C.AMMU ... PETITIONER/INTERVENER IN CRL OP(MD)NOS.22780 & 22796/2017 For Petitioner : M/S.S.VENKATESAN Advocate IN CRL OP(MD)NOS.22780 & 22796 OF 2017 For Petitioner : M/S.K.MUTHU GANESAPANDIAN, Advocate IN CRL OP(MD)No.23549 OF 2017 For Respondent : MR.A.RAMAR, Additional Public Prosecutor IN ALL THE PETITIONS For Intervenor : MR.R.VENKATESHWAR, Advocate IN ALL THE PETITIONS PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners, who are arrayed as A1, A2, A3 and A5 in Crime No.30 of 2016 on the file of the respondent police, apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 423, 465, 468, 471, 120 (b) and 506(ii) IPC and hence, seeks anticipatory bail. 2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the intervener/defacto complainant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State. 3.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners colluding with the other accused, including the Government officials, are alleged to have grabbed the property of the defacto complainant by creating forged documents and also forging the signature of the defacto complainant, after affixing her photo. 4.
The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that due to previous enmity, the present false complaint has been lodged by the defacto complainant and that the petitioners are innocent and they have not committed any offence as alleged in the complaint. 5.The learned counsel appearing for the intervener/defacto complainant submitted that the petitioners colluding with the other accused illegally grabbed her property and that though the case has been registered in the year 2016, the respondent Police did not take any steps to arrest the accused. There is also life threat against the defacto complainant.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the nature of the allegations raised against the petitioners, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, these petitions are dismissed. However, the respondent Police is directed to complete the investigation and file a final report within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. sd/- 30/06/2017 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ANTI LAND GRABBING CELL, THANJAVUR DISTRICT.
2 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) Nos.22780,22796 and 23549 of 2016 Date :30/06/2017 GCG CSL/CM-MSA/SAR-I/17.07.2017 : 2P/3C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/