Felix Martin v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 26/06/2024 PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice B.PUGALENDHI CRL OP(MD). Nos.6656 and 6914 of 2024
1. Felix Martin
2. Nelson
3. Arul Jesintha Mary
4. Sahaya Selvi
5. Anthuvan Christy
6. Kevin Michael ... Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 6 Vs The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Dindigul, Dindigul District.
Cr.No.1/2024.
... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioners : M/s.Saravana Kumar,Advocate For Respondent : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Crl.O.P(MD)No.6914 of 2024
1. Kandasamy 2.Periyasamy ... Petitioners/Accused Nos. 10 & 12 1/4
Vs The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Dindigul, Dindigul District.
Cr.No.1/2024.
... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioners : M/s.R.Velmurugan,Advocate For Respondent : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C COMMON PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No. 1/2024 on the file of the respondent police. COMMON ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners, apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent Police, in connection with a case in Crime No.1 of 2024, for the offence punishable under Sections 120(B), 417, 463, 465, 468 and 471 IPC, have filed these petitions seeking anticipatory bail.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant has purchased the land in S.No.748/8C3 from the petitioners. However, the said land was sold by the petitioners to the seventh accused that too without patta in favour of the seventh accused. Hence the case.
2/4
3.The learned counsels appearing for the petitioners submit that based on the judgment passed by this Court in S.A(MD)No.216 of 2010, dated 02.12.2016, the document has been registered. They further submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, they pray for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent Police submits that without adding the concerned parties to the second appeal, the petitioners have obtained the decree in the second appeal. The judgment passed in the second appeal is pertaining to survey No.748/7, whereas, the petitioners have created the document pertaining to the Survey No.748/8C3. 5.Considering the rival submissions, this Court by earlier order, dated 24.06.
2024, has extended the interim anticipatory bail to the petitioners enabling them to appear before the respondent police and to co-operate for the investigation. The respondent police has filed a detailed report. 6.Considering the materials placed before this Court as against the petitioners stating that the petitioners, without any title, have created the document and the manner in which, the document have also been created, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioners. Accordingly, these Criminal Original Petitions are dismissed.
3/4
7.This Court places appreciation to the investigation officer for the manner, in which, the report has been filed.
sd/- 26/06/2024 / TRUE COPY / /07/2024 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.I /II /III /IV ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
LR TO THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, DINDIGUL, DINDIGUL DISTRICT. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.6656 of 2024 Date :26/06/2024 PKP/JGB/SAR /10.07.2024/ 4P/ 3C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 4/4