Ujin Joseph Xavier v. The Inspector Of Police

CRL OP(MD). No.11195 of 2023 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 22/06/2023 PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN CRL OP(MD). No.11195 of 2023 Ujin Joseph Xavier ... Petitioner/Accused No.1 Vs The State Rep.by The Inspector of Police, Kodaikanal Police Station, Dindigul District (Crime No.159 of 2023).

... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : M/s.Veeraraghavan.S, Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.159 of 2023 on the file of the respondent police ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner/A1 who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under sections 120(b), 468,471,341,294(b) and 506(i) of IPC in Crime No. 159 of 2023 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that A3 purchased a land comprised in old S.No.416/2, T.S.No.19, WardD, Block 27 measuring 6 cents from S.Maria Gabrial on 05.11.1991, thereafter she obtained patta in her name and she was in possession and enjoyment of the property. Thereafter through power agent sold the property in favour of N.Natarajan and K.Jaganathan and K.Sivakumar under sale deed dated 07.09.2016 registered vide document no.1748/2016 iin the office of SRO, Kodaikanal. Thereafter all of a sudden the defacto complainant and her relatives send a legal notice to the petitioner and the same was also replied by the petitioner, however she came to know that she could not file a civil case against the petitioner, the present petition has been filed.

3. Heard both side and perused the materials available on record including the First Information Report.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner owned property vide sale deed in the year 1959. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/2

CRL OP(MD). No.11195 of 2023 Thereafter had sold it in favour of A4 and A5. Therefore the petitioner is no way connected with the alleged crime as alleged by the prosecution.

5. The learned counsel for the intervenor would submit that originally the property belongs to the grand father of the petitioner and the petitioner herein is the master mind behind the entire crime. He created fabricated and false documents as if he had purchased the property in the year 1959 and subsequently by way of unregistered sale deed in the year 1991 he had executed sale deed in favour of A4 and A5. Now the petitioner is aged about 64 years and even assuming that the petitioner had purchased the property he was only one year old at the time of purchasing the property in the year 1959, hence he objected to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. The learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) would submit that the accused persons wantonly created some documents and sold out the property to the third persons.

7. Taking into consideration all the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

8. Hence the petition stands dismissed.

sd/- 22/06/2023 / TRUE COPY / /07 /2023 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

AAV TO

1. The Inspector of Police, Kodaikanal Police Station, Dindigul District

2. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

+1 CC to M/s.S.VEERARAGAVAN, Advocate ( SR-9441[I] dated 23/06/2023 ) ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.11195 of 2023 Date :22/06/2023 RD/MGA (03/07/2023) 2P 4C https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/2