R.Panjabakesan v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 20/06/2023 PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN R.PANJABAKESAN, ... PETITIONER/RANK NOT KNOWN VS THE STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CITY CRIME BRANCH POLICE STATION, TRICHY.
( CRIME NO.9 OF 2021) ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/s.Arunraj K, Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi, Additional Public Prosecutor(Crl.Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.439 of Cr.P.C.
PRAYER :- For Bail in Crime No.9 of 2021 on the file of the respondent police ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner /Accused who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 04.05.2023 for the offences under sections 406,420,465,468,471 and 109 of IPC in Crime No.9 of 2021 on the file of the respondent police seeks bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that believing the words of the first accused the defacto complainant on various dates totally gave a sum of Rs.41,30,000/- to the first accused to purchase house sites and thereafter receiving the amount from the defacto complainant the first accused registered registered a sale deed in favour of the defacto complainant through T.N.Loganathan and when 1/3
the defacto complainant tried to obtained patta it came to light that the property purchased by her was Kuttai Poramboke property and per the direction of the District Collector she cancelled the sale deed and filed civil suit against the first accused and other and the same ended in favour of the defacto complainant and the court ordered the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.47,21,359/- to the defacto complainant and in the month of November 2013 the defacto complainant lodged complaint against the first accused before the Commissioner of Police and after enquiry the first accused gave two cheques to the defacto complainant and the cheques returned as insufficient funds and thereafter a case has been filed against the first accused and the first accused assured to compromise the matter.
As per the assurance the first accused had taken steps to execute sale deed to the property belongs to T.Loganathan and the said Loganathan executed the sale deed in respect of the property situated in K.Sathanur village and in that document the first accused and one Mohankumar has signed as witnesses and the said Loganathan signed as attestor and for executing sale deed the defacto complainant again gave a sum of Rs.35,00,000/- to the first accused and when the defacto complainant tried to obtain patta it came to light that the first accused and the Loganathan executed sale deed with respect to the properties which not belongs to them and thereby totally received a sum of Rs.82,21,359/- from the defcto complainant and cheated her, hence the case.
3. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record including the First Information Report.
4. The petitioner also involved in four similar cases and he is the master mind behind the entire crime. Further the petitioner herein helped the other accused in preparing forged aadhar card and voter's ID and executed settlement deed in favour of his son T.Loganathan and registered the same in K.Sathanur Sub Registrar Officer . Further there is a proposal to detain the petitioner under Act.14 of 1982, hence this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
5. In the result, the petition stands dismissed. sd/- 20/06/2023 / TRUE COPY / /06/2023 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
2/3
TO
1. THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL JAIL, TRICHY.
2. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CITY CRIME BRANCH POLICE STATION, TRICHY.
3. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.10979 of 2023 Date :20/06/2023 AAV SI/(26.06.2023) 3P/ 4C 3/3