A.K.Ramasamy v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Dated: 12/08/2022 PRESENT The Hon'ble Mr.Justice G.ILANGOVAN Crl.OP(MD)No.14075 of 2022 A.K.Ramasamy ... Petitioner/Accused No.1 Vs.

The State of Tamil Nadu rep. By the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Virudhunagar, Virudhunagar District.

(Crime No.15 of 2021) ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.C.K.M.Appaji, Advocate For Respondent : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C PRAYER:- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.15 of 2021 on the file of the Respondent Police.

ORDER : The Court made the following order:- The petitioner, who is arrayed as A1 apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offence punishable under sections 120(B), 419, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, in Crime No.15 of 2021 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the father of the defacto complainant namely Ramasamy Naickkar purchased property in Survey No.466/1 measuring about 3.64 acres from one Pampoon Naicker and Kanthasamy Naickar. He died. After that, the legal heirs inherited the property. In 2018, there was a dispute between the legal heirs. So, a suit in O.S No.7 of 2018 was filed before the

District Munsif Court, Virudhunagar. In the meantime, A1A.K.Ramasamy claimed himself to be the owner of the property, executed a sale deed in favour of A2, in which A3 and A4 signed as attesting witnesses. Based upon the above said complaint, the case was registered.

3.Seeking anticipatory, this petitioner, who is arrayed as A1 filed this petition on the ground that he is not involved in the above said occurrence. He was working as House Keeper in Sangeetha Hotel, Thiruvanmiyur Branch, Chennai and at that time, one Rajkumar become his friend. He asked him to assist to purchase the above said property. Without knowing the implication of the same, he collected the aadhar card and he requested to sign as attesting witness. Due to poor eye sight, without reading the document, he signed the same. Later only, he came to know that he has been cheated. The Bank account number that has been mentioned in the sale deed does not belong to him. So according to him, he is not absolutely involved in the above said impersonation.

4.Heard both sides.

5.The story that has been projected by the petitioner is a matter for investigation. When serious allegation of impersonation has been made, automatically the petitioner must be subjected to the custodial interrogation to bring out the truth. So, I find no merit in this petition.

6.In the result, this criminal original petition is dismissed. Sd/- 12/08/2022 / TRUE COPY / /09/2022 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.II) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

ER Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

TO

1. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, VIRUTHUNAGAR, VIRUTHUNAGAR DISTRICT.

2. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.14075 of 2022 Date :12/08/2022 SP/SVR/SAR II/05/09/2022/3P/3C